C14l£l 


v^i To stTio v\     i m     North  Vs_A.rol »' n 


R^A-Vocier 


C6e  Ilibrarp 

of  tl>e 

Ontoetgitp  of  iQortb  Carolina 


Collection  of  iI2ortfi  Carolmiana 


mm 


-':."•—■   . 


%m 


THE    SITUATION 


in 


NORTH    CAROLINA, 


•BY- 

4* 


E.  A.  YODEE. 


-  NEWTON,  N.  C.  : 

ENTERPRISE  JOB  OFFICE,  PRINT, 
1894. 


THE    SITUATION 


■IN 


NORTH    CAROLINA, 


•BY- 


E.  A.  YODER. 


NEWTON,  N.  C: 

EKThKPHISE  JOB  OFFICE,  PRINT, 
1804. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013    . 


http://archive.org/details/situatiohinnorthOOyode 


INTRODUCTION. 

Truth  is  invincible,  yet  Christians  are  to  contend  for  it. 
We  are  to  strive,  to  labor,  and  to  do  battle  in  the  cause  oi 
the  pure  doctrine  oi  God's  Word  and  the  upbuilding'  of  His 
holy  Church.  This  pamphlet  is  written  in  the  cause  of  truth, 
with  an  eye  single  to  the  rights  and  b^st  interests  of  the 
Christian  Church  as  represented  by  the  Evangelical  Luther- 
an Tennessee  Synod  :  therefore  it  needs  no  defense  and  makes 
no  apology  for  its  appearance. 

These  pages  are  primarily  addressed  to  the  people  of  the 
Tennessee  Synod.  To  them  the  author  is  well  known,  and 
needs  no  word  of  introduction  or  commendation.  The 
object  in  view  is  to  give  our  people  a  oorreat  and  reliable 
statement  of  the  situation  of  school  and  church  matters  m 
our  Synod,  especially  in  Catawba  County,  North  Carolina, 
so  that  they  may  advisedly  act  their  part  in  the  settlement 
of  the  complications  now  existing  among'  us.  The  historical 
matter  embodied  herein  is  of  importance  to  the  Synod,  and 
should  be  preserved.  The  doctrinal  matter  will  be  highly 
prized  by  all  who  love  the  pure  teachings  of  our  Church  and 
Synod,  since  herein  the  author  clearly  sets  forth  and  main- 
tains the  old  Bible  and  confessional  doctrine  of  election  over 
against  the  teachings  of  those  who  would  foist  a  n^w  doc- 
trine tij  on  our  Synod  to  the  serious  disturbance  of  its  peace 
and  harmony.  Herein  too  it  plainly  appears  that  self-inter- 
est and  error  are  the  manifest  causes  of  the  troubles  that  now 
yex  the  church  here,  and  are  unquestionably  the  occasion  of 
the  gross  irregularities,  innovations,  and  interferences,  of 
which  our  people  have  such  abundant  reason  to  complain. 
Error  aud  the  fruits  of  error,  misrepresentation  and  unwar- 
ranted intermeddling;,  have  called  forth  this  pamphlet.  Much 
more  might  have  been  written;  but  this  is  sufficient  to  make 
clear  to  any  fair  minded  reader  the  error,  the  spirit,  and  the 
methods  of  those  who  have  intefered  in  our  work,   and  how 


iv  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina, 

they  have  been  aided  and  abetted  by  some  oi  oar  own  pas- 
tors in  creating  and  fostering  schism  and  confusion  among 
us. 

The  author  has  wisely  established  his  doctrinal  position 
by  allowing  the  Confessions  to  testify  of  the  Lutheran 
faith;  and  then  very  properly  he  has  quoted  some  of  the 
great  teachers  and  writers  of  our  church  to  show  how  our 
Confession  has  with  great  unanimity  been  understood  and 
interpreted  since  its  first  publication.  The  testimony  from 
these  sources  presented  in  these  pages,  as  to  the  true  Luthe- 
ran doctrine  of  election,  is  overwhelming  and  incontrovert- 
ible. 

Our  only  purpose  in  sending  forth  this  publication  is  to 
contribute  what  we  can  toward  the  defense  of  the  pure  faith 
of  our  church  and  toward  the  peace  and  harmony  of  our 
Synod. 

This  work  was  prepared  at  the  request  of  the  undersigned 
pastors  and  teachers.  We  have  read  the  manuscript,  and 
give  it  our  hearty  endorsement.  We  cordially  commend  it 
to  our  people,  and  ask  for  it  a  careful  reading.  We  send  it 
forth  on  its  mission  with  the  sincere  prayer  that  God's 
blessing  may  accompany  it,  and  make  it  an  efficient  instru- 
ment for  the  maintainance  of  His  truth  and  the  good  of  His 
Church.  J.   C,   MOSEK, 

Lenoir  College,  W.  P.  CLINE, 

Hickory,  N.  C,  J.  P.   MILLER, 

July  16th,  1894.  R.  L.  FRITZ. 


THE  SITUATION  IN  NORTH  CAROLINA 


It  is  generally  known  among  our  Lutheran  people  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Tennessee  Synod,  that  there  are  pas- 
tors of  the  Missouri  Synod  serving  congregations  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Tennessee  Synod  ;  and  that  the  school  at  Con- 
over  has  by  some  means  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Eng- 
lish Synod  of  Missouri.  It  may  not  be  so  clear  to  some  of 
our  Tennessee  Synod  people,  why  these  Missouriam  tnv  here, 
or  how  they  came  into  Tennessee  congregations,  or  by 
what  means  they  secured  control  of  Concordia  College.  And 
furthermore,  our  people  do  not  know  who  they  are,  or  what 
differences  of  doctrine  and  practice  exist  between  the  English 
Synod  of  Miseouri  and  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Tennessee 
Synod.  To  set  some  of  these  matters  in  their  true  light  is 
the  object  of  this  writing.  It  seems  clear  to  the  writer  that 
this  writing  is  necessary,  because  some  of  the  Tennessee  con- 
gregations are  disturbed  and  divided  by  these  Missouri  pas- 
tors— As  St.  John's  in  Catawba  County  and  St.  Martin's  in 
Iredell  County.  If  these  pastors  held  the  same  views  that 
the  Tennessee  Synod  holds  and  would  connect  Themselves 
with  the  Synod  to  which  the  congregations  belong,  there 
would  be  no  occasion  for  diyission,  and  the  disturbance 
would  disappear.  It  would  be  well  for  our  people  prayerfully 
to  consider  from  what  quarter  they  call  pastors,  and  wheth- 
er those  they  call  teach  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and 
the  Confessions,  which  the  old  Tennessee  Synod  has  always 
held  and  defended. 

In  order  to  understand  clearly  the  situation  in  our  Synod 
in  North  Carolina,  and  especially  in  and  immediately  around 
Conover,  it  will  be  necessary  to  review  the  history  of  the 
school  question  in  the  Tennessee  Synod, 

i 

The   School  Question  in  the  Tennessee  Synod.— 

Sometime  during  the  autum  of  1875,  the  question  of  estab- 
lishing a  school  for  the  Tennessee  Synod,   at  some  point  in 


6  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

Catawba  County,  North  Carolina,  was  agitated.  This  agi- 
tation grew  out  of,  or  at  least  immediately  followed,  a  con- 
troversy by  the  late  Rev.  P.  C.  Henkel,  D.  D.  and  Prof.  F.  A. 
Schmidt,  D.  I).,  then  of  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  with  Rev.  Daniel 
May,  a  Methodist  minister. 

A  number  of  meetings  were  held  at  which  the  school  ques- 
tion wras  considered.  Several  were  held  at  Newton,  one  at 
Hickory,  one  at  Conover,  one  at  St.  Paul's  church,  and  one 
at  St.  James'  church.  At  the  first  meeting  at  which  the 
question  of  location  was  considered,  which  meeting  was  held 
at  Newton,  it  was  decided  by  a  majority  to  locate  the  school 
in  or  near  the  town  of  Hickory,  on  property  offered  to  our 
people  by  Col.  Walter  W.  Lenoir,  provided  the  site  was  satis- 
factory. A  committee  was  appointed  to  go  to  Hickory,  to 
look  at  the  site,  interview  Col.  Lenoir,  and  report  to  the  next 
meeting,  also  held  in  Newton. 

That  committee,  consisting  of  Moses  Holt,  Jacob  Mostelier 
and  Darius  Seitz,  went  to  Hickory,  viewed  the  site,  were 
well  pleased  with  it,  approved  the  location,  secured  a  bond 
for  title,  and  submitted  their*  report  to  the  next  meeting. 
Their  report  was  received  and  adopted,  and  the  school 
located  at  Hickory  by  a  large  majority. 

Those  favoriug  Conover  for  the  location  of  the  school  were 
not  satisfied  with  the  action  at  Newton,  and  called  a  meeting 
at  Conover,  at  which  it  was  resolved  'that  all  former  action 
in  reference  to  the  location  of  the  school  be  rescinded.  This 
resolution  was  introduced  by  F.  L.  Herman  oi  Hickory  with 
the  hope  of  reconciling  all  parties,  for  he  was  himsell  strong- 
ly in  favor  of  Hickory,  for  the  location.  Then  delegates  from 
our  congregations  were  asked  to  meet  again  in  Newton,  at 
which  meeting  it  was  again  decided  by  a  large  majority^to 
locate  the  school  at  Hickory.  But  again  that  decision  was 
overruled  at  meetings  at  St.  Paul's  arid  at  St.  James',  and 
the  school  was  finally  located  at  Conover  against  the  wishes 
of  a  majority  of  the  people.  Jt  might  be  asked  why  it  was 
that  if  the  people  really  decided  at  those,  several  different 
meetings  to  locate  the  school  at   Hickory,  that  it  was  not 


The  Situation  in  North  Cmolinti.  7 

done.  We  need  only  remember  that;  at  that  time,  there  was 
but  one  Lutheran  pastor.  Rev.  J.  M.  Smith,  working  in 
Catawba  County,  who  had  charge  of  seven  congregations 
and  was  the  pastor  of  1,250  communicants,  [see  his  report 
in  minutes  of  Tennessee  Synod,  1875]  to  understand  why  it 
was.  And  if  we  remember,  too,  that  he  lived  within  one  mile 
of  the  location  and  had  several  sons  ready  for  school-;  we 
can  see  a  powerful  motive,  why  he  would  override  the  wishes 
of  the  people  and  locate  at  Conover.  [The  facts  stated 
above  with  reference  to  the  location  of  the  school  were  learn- 
ed from,  M.  L.  Cline  of  Hickory;  Silas  Smyre  of  Newton; 
Daniel  W.  Moose,  Arndt;  G.  M.  Yoder,  Jacob's  Fork  :  D.  M. 
Wyant,  Henry;  F.  L.  Herman,  Hickory;  Reuben  Yoder, 
Jacob's  Fork;  A.  G.  Corpening,  Jacob's  Fork:  J.  M.  Rhodes, 
Cherryville;  and  Noah  Barringer,  Newton.  And  if  any  one 
should  question  the  facts,  let  him  refer  to  them;  they  are 
yet  living  at  the  post  office  addresses  given.] 

In  this  arbitrary  proceeding*  a  greats  majority  of  our  peo- 
ple never  acquiesced.  And  Kev.  Dr.  A.  J.  Fox,  always  object- 
ed, and  for  this  reason  opposed  the  school  as  long  as  he 
lived.  He  fought  its  being  received  into  connection  with  the 
Synod  at  every  meeting  at  which  the  matter  was  considered. 
Some  of  our  people  did  lay  aside  their  preferences  in  the 
matter  of  location,  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  of  the  church, 
and  aided  in  the  erection  of  buildings  at  Conover,  although 
never  satisfied  with  the  location.  And  thus  matters  stood 
from  1877,  when  the  school  was  opened  at  Conover,  until 
1890,  During  these  thirteen  years,  by  persistent  labor, 
always  having  to  contend  with  the  opposition  caused  by 
this  highhanded  method  of  location, — those  who  labored 
there  know  full  well — the  school  was  carried  on  with  varying 
success.  In  1889  the  opposition  to  the  school  at  Conover 
had  to  some  extent  been  allayed,  because,  in  the  meantime, 
Synod  had  taken  it  under  its  care.  This  action  was  taken 
at  Conover  in  1883,  after  four  years  of  effort  on  the  part  of 
the  trustees  of  the  school  to  have  Synod  accept  the  school, 
[see  minutes  of  1879.  1880,  1881,  1882,  and  1883.]  In  1889 


rV  The  Situation  in  NoHh  Carolina. 

at  a  meeting  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  held  at  Holly  Grove  it 
was  resolved  that  a  committee  of  five,  three  ministers  and 
two  laymen,  be  appointed  to  make  an  effort  to  raise 
|10,000  for  the  puopose  of  erecting  suitable  College  build- 
ings at  Conover.  And  when  Rev.  Prof.  W.  P.  Cline,  chairman 
of  this  committee,  had  with  a  great  deal  of  energy  and  sac- 
rifice of  time  and  money,  proceeded  to  canvass  the  Synod  in 
part,  and  when  in  the  midst  of  his  work,  having  raised  by 
bonds  and  subscription,  the  amount  of  f  5,500,  the  Synod 
met  at  Mi.  Calvery,  Page  County,  Virginia,  October,  181)0. 

During  that  meeting,  Rev.  Prof.  A.  L,  Crouse,  presented  to 
several  of  the  pastors  in  a  private  meeting  certain  papers 
and  a  proposition  from  Mr.  J.  G.  Hall,  of  Hickory,  trustee 
of  the  school  property  of  Col.  Lenoir.  This  was  the  same 
site  which  had  been  offered  fifteen  years  before,  with  the  addi- 
tional gift  of  27  lots,  which  had  not  been  offered  before. 
The  matter  of  considering  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Hall  pre- 
sented by  Rev.  A.  L.  Crouse,  was  opposed  by  some  of  the 
pastors  who  were  of  the  opinion  that  the  school  matter  had 
better  rest,  others  favored  the  consideration  of  the  proposi- 
tion. Rev.  Crouse  also  presented  the  matter  to  some  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  November  17th,  1800,  and 
the  Board  refused  to  entertain  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Hall. 
And  at  a  meeting  of  the  North  Carolina  Conference,  of  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Tennessee  Synod  at  Friendship 
church,  Alexander  County,  North  Carolina,  November  27-30, 
1890,  it  was  again  presented,  and  Conference  asked  the 
President  of  Synod  to  call  an  extra  session  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  to  meet  at  St.  James'  church,  Catawba  County, 
North  Carolina,  December  26,  27,1890,  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  Mr.  J.  G.  Hall's  proposition. 

Synod  met  at  the  call  of  the  President,  and  after  two  days 
of  wrangling,  and  dilatory  motions,  and  misrepresentations, 
and  previous  questions,  the  Synod  adjourned  without  ever 
voting  ujton  the  question  for  which  it  was  nwiubled. 

In'the  evening  of  Saturday,  the  second  day  of  the  meeting, 
a  vote  was  forced  by  the  Conover  party,   under  "gag-law" 


The  Situatioiginl North  Carolina.  9 

on  a  motion  to  locate  the  school  permanently  at  Conover, 
which  was  a  substitute  for  the  question  before  Synod.  Again 
the  question  of  location  was  not  satisfactorily  settled,  but 
divided  the  Synod  much  more  than  it  ever  had  been  before. 
Only  five  out  of  the  seventeen  pastors  present  voted  to 
locate  permanently  at  Conover.  After  this  meeting  the  fol- 
lowing explanatory  letter  appeared,  which  explains  itself: 

''An  Explanatory  Pastoral  Letter." 


"la  order  that  we  may  be  properly  understood,  and  our  motives  not  mis- 
construed, the  undersigned  pastors  and  teachers  of  the  Evangelical  Luthe- 
ran Tennessee  Synod,  desire  to  lay  before  all  our  brethren  our  reasons  for 
refusing  to  vote  upon  the  question  of  the  location  of  Concordia  College. 

We  affirm  that  this  we  do  humbly  believing  our  right  to  do  so,  and 
relying  upon  our  purpose,  by  God's  help,  to  promote  the  best  interests  of 
our  Synod.  We  assert  that  our  course  of  action  was  based  upon  no  person- 
al consideration ;  that,  disclaiming  all  other  intentions  and  purposes,  we 
simply  desired  to  do  all  that  we  could  for  our  educational  interests;  that  we 
refused  to  vote,  because  it  was  our  purpose  to  increase  our  school  property 
and  advantages  by  the  acceptance  of  the  offer  of  Mr.  Hall,  of  Hickory,  and 
also  that  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Concordia,  College,  in  accordance  with 
the  proposition  submitted  to  the  Synod,  and  discussed  by  Synod,  during 
its  first  day's  session;  that  we  labored  to  harmonize  all  elements,  without 
ignoring  the  interests  of  any ;  that,  on  the  second  day's  session,  we  propos- 
ed to  refer  the  consideration  of  the  whole  matter  to  a  committee  of  five  dis- 
interested and  unbiased  men  of  our  Church,  to  whom  all  advantages  and  ar- 
guments of  a  proper  character  should  be  submitted  ;  that  in  the  midst  of  the 
discussion  of  this  proposition  a  motion  was  made  to  locate  Concordia  College 
permanently  at  Conover,  N.  C,  without  any  reference  whatever  to  the  offer  of 
Mr.  Hall,  for  the  special  consideration  of  which  the  Synod  had  been  called  to- 
gether; that  the  discussion  of  this  last  question  was  carried  on,  as  we  believe 
in  an  unfair  manner,  the  time  being  largely  consumed  by  a  few  individuals, 
who  presistently  refused  to  entertain  any  proposition  looking  to  the  unity 
of  the  Church  and  the  fair  treatment  ot  those  who  differed  in  judgment  from 
them  ;  that  this  discussion  excluded  the  posibility  of  fairly  investigating  Mr. 
Hall's  proposition,  the  question  properly  before  Synod;  that  when  the  friends 
of  Hickory  desired  and  called  for  the  further  discussion  of  the  question,  mak- 
ing a  motion  to  adjourn  until  Monday,  the  yeas  and  nays,  the  previous 
question,  were  called  for  and  demanded,  thus  cutting  off  all  possibility  of 
the  further  discussion  of  this  whole  matter ;  that  the  vote  to  locate  the  Col- 
lege at  Conover  was  not  rightly  taken  by  voting  for  or  against  Conover, 
but  that  the  vote  was  take.i  between  Conover  and  Hickory,  an  idea  not 


iYj*  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina, 

% 

embodied  in  the  motion ;  that  being  thus  pressed  to  vote,  without  a  full  and 
&iir  discussion  of  Mr\  Hall's  proposition,  we  felt  that  we  could  not,  with  a 
true  sense  of  our  responsibility  as  the  servants  of  the  Church  and  the  digni- 
ty of  our  high  and  holy  office,  take  part  in  the  casting  of  such  vote,  and 
therefore  we  declined  to  vote. 

We  herewith  submit  only  a  faint  expression  of  our  great  grief  and  mortifi- 
cation at  this  action  of  our  Synod,  unprecedented,  so  far  as   we  know,   in 
any  ecclesiastical  body.    We  have  sadly  realized,  for  some  time,  that   we 
have  not  brought  our  whole  strength  to  the  educational  work  of  our  Synod 
and  it  was  our  earnest  purpose  and   ardent  longing  to  compromise  past 
differences  and  present  preferences,  so  as  to  marshal  our  whole  force,  and 
to  call  out  our  full  strength  in  our  educational  work.   We  declare  our  unwill-  * 
ingness  to  acquiesce  in  what,  we  believe,  will  be  a  futile  effort  to  do  even  a 
small  part  of  our  duty  in  the  future.     We  assert  our  unwillingness  to  abide, 
by  such  action  as  makes  it  impossible  for  us  confidently  to  expect  the  bless- 
ing of  God  to  crown  it  with  success.     We  do  not  believe  that  we  should  lose 
any  time  in  the  important  work  of  I  raining  ministers  !\>r  our  Church,  and  in 
the  Christian  education  of  our  youth,  by  se^kiug  to  uphold  the  future  of  an 
institution,  whose  permanent  location  has  been  secured   in    the  unfair  man- 
ner herein  set  forth,  and  therefore  we  must  emphatically  dc-line  to  do  so. 

Signed:  A.  L.  Grouse*  M  L.  Little,  -J\  C.  Moser,  R.  A.  Yoder,  D.  A.  Good- 
man, W.  P.  Cline,  I).  J,  Setfclemyre,  J.  A.  Rudisill,  R.  II.  Cline,  1).  I.  Off  man, 
J.  P.  Miller,  Jacob  Wike,  R,  L.  Fritz." 

Thus,  again,  by  the  unfair  aud  unchristian  methods  of  the 
Couover  pastors,  Revs.  J.  M.  Smith  and  C.  H.  Bernheim,  the 
occasion  was  given  for  the  old  dissatisfaction  concerning  the 
location  ol  the  school  at  Conover  to  arise  with  greater  pro- 
portions. And  here  another  attempt  was  made  to  override 
the  wishes  of  the  people,  in  the  matter  of  locating  the  school. 
On  the  13th  of  January  1891,  the  Board  oi  Trustees  of 
Concordia  College  decided  by  a  unanimous  vote  to  submit 
the  question  of  the  location  of  the  school,  as  between  Cono- 
ver and  Hickory,  to  a  direct  vote  of  the  people  in  the  congre- 
.  gations  of  the  Tennessee  Synod.  This  proposition  was  made 
by  Revs.  Smith  and  Bernheim.  and  agreed  to  by  that  part 
of  the  Board  favoring  Hickory,  Revs.  J.  C.  Moser,  A.  L. 
Crouse,  and  J.  A.  Rudisill  who  were  present  at  that  meeting, 
A  committee  was  appointed  to  write  up  the  advantages  of 
each  place,  and  submit  their  paper  to  a  meeting  of  the  Board 
on  January  27th  1891.  The  committee  was  Rev.  J.  G. 
Schaid  for  Conover,  and  Rev.  A,  L.  Crouse  for  Hickory.    At 


The  Situation  in  Xorth  C&rolinsb.'  11 

that  meeting  of  January  27th  Revs.  Smith  and  Bernheim 
opposed  their  own  proposition  of  two  weeks  before  and  re- 
fused to  submit  the  question  to  the  votes  of  the  people. 

Thus  under  these  circumstances,  when  it  was  perfectly  clear 
to  those  who  favored  Hickory,  that  the  Conover  party 
would  not  submit  to  anything  that  was  fair,  honorable,  and 
christain,  in  the  'matter  of  deciding  the  location  of  the 
school,  a  number  of  pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  encour- 
aged by  those  who  signed  the  above  quoted  pastoral  letter, 
and  urged  by  a  great  many  of  the  laymen  of  the  church,  ac- 
cepted Mr.  Hall's  proposition  and  began  work  at  Hickory, 
and  thus  secured  this  valuable  property  to  the  Lutheran 
Church.  This  important  work  for  the  Church  was  under- 
taken at  a  great  personal  sacrifice  of  those  who  engaged  in 
it.  It  was  not  undertaken  to  oppose  the  school  at  Conover 
or  the  people  of  Conover,  but  in  order  to  increase  the  school 
facilities  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  which  it  was  concientiously 
believed  could  be  better  accomplished  at  Hickory  than  at 
Conover.  And  the  work  at  Hickory  thus  far  proves  that 
that  opinion  was  well  founded. 

After  those  who  had  been  laboring  at  Conover  in  the 
school,  had  gone  to  Hickory  for  the  reasons,  and  under  the 
circumstances  above  given,  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Con- 
cordia College,  Conover,  North  Carolina,  entered  into  an 
agreement  with  the  Mission  Board  of  the  English  Synod  oi 
Missouri,  by  which-the  school  at  Conover  passed  under  the 
control  of  the  Missouri  Synod.  What  right  had  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Concordia  College,  some  of  whom  were 
originally  appointed  by  the  association,  and  others  after- 
wards recommended  by  the  Tennessee  Synod  to  that  posi- 
tion, to  give  away  to  the  Missouri  Synod,  property  which 
was  not  theirs  to  give  away,  but  only  to  keep  in  trust? 
What  right  had  they  to  give  to  the  Missouri  Synod  property 
which  vvas  paid  for  by  individuals  and  congregations  of  the 
Tennessee  Synod,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Tennessee  Synod? 
It  is  the  conviction  of  many  that  these  members  of  the 
Board  have  betrayed  a  sacred  trust;  that  they  have  given 


12  Tjhe  Situation  in  Nortli  Carolina. 

away  property  committed  to  their  keeping;  and  that  they 
have  not  only  lost  the  property  to  the  Tennessee  Synod,  but 
have  given  it  over  to  her  enemies,  and  have  thereby  intro- 
duced trouble  into  the  Church  in  this  part  of  the  country. 
Did  the  members  of  the  association  who  subscribed  and  paid 
money  over  into  that  board  authorize  this  giving  away? 
Did  the  Synod,  whose  congregations  were  canvassed  for 
money,  authorize  this  giving?  Did  Eev.  J.  M.  Smith  assume 
to  himself  the  prerogative  of  sole  dictator  in  this  matter  of 
giving  away  the  property,  as  he  did  in  the  first  movement 
in  1875,  in  the  matter  of  location? 

And  it  may  be  a  matter  of  interest  to  some  to  know  that 
this  is  not  the  only  time  that the  giving  away  business  has 
been  engaged  in.  An  attempt  was  made  just  about  one  year 
before  it  was  given  to  the  Missourri  Synod,  to  give  it  to  the 
Concordia  District  of  the  Ohio  Syuod.  The  following  extract 
will  be  interesting  reading  to  those  who  are  now  told  that 
the  Missouri  Syuod  was  given  control  of  the  school  because 
she  held  the  same  doctrines  as  held  by  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
and  would  carry  out  the  original  design  of  the  school.  The 
following  is  quoted  from  a  letter  written  by  the  Secretary  of 
the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Concordia  College,  Rev.  C.  H.  Bern- 
heim,  from  Conover.  North  Carolina,  November  30th,  1890, 
to  Rev.  E.  L.  S.  Tressel,  Baltimore,  Maryland.  After  ad- 
dressing Rev.  Tressel  as  "  Dear  Brother  inChrist,v  Rev.  Bern- 
heim  says,  after  referring  to  the  agitation  of  the  school 
question : 

"  would  you  entertain  an  offer  of  Concordia  College  as  a  donation.,  made  to 
you  so  by  deed,  to  run  it  according'  to  the  provisions  of  its  charter  This  is 
centrally  located  as  to  its  Lutheran  dement,  and  should  you  realize  any 
profit  in  the  sale  of  your  property  in  Hickory  part  of  such  proceeds  might 
be  applied  to  the  erection  of  other  buildings  if  necessary,  and  he  remainder 
used  as  a  nucleus  for  an  endowment  fund.  If  such  an  arrangement  is  forced 
to  be  made  (and  it  looks  so  now)  and  is  accepted  by  you.  i  would  give  you 
no  inconsiderate  following,  strength  and  foothold  here  We  hold  you  as 
Christian  brethren  of  the  k same  household  of  faith'  marshalled  under  the 
same  battle  flag  with  no  Shibboleth  to  divide  us." 

[The  letter  from  which  the  above  is  quoted,   together  with 


The  Wtimtion  in  North  C&i-oUnsb.  13 

several  others  showing  the  same  spirit,  is  now  in  posession 
of  Prof.  W.  P.  Cline,  and  can  be  seen  on  application  to  him,] 
From  this  quotation  we  see  how  little  there  is  in  the  statement 
that  the  school  was  given  to  Missouri  because  they  were  one 
with  the  Tennessee  Synod  in  doctrine,  when  we  see  here  that 
it  was  offered  to  the  Ohio  Synod  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Board.  Here  we  see  that  Rev.  Bernheim  agreed  with  Ohio 
in  1890.  and  in  1892,  in  a  statement  before  the  North 
Carolina  Conference  at  Salem  church,  he  said  he  agreed  with 
Missouri,  and  yet  he  never  changed  his  views.  Was  the 
school  offered  the  Ohioans  because  they  agreed  with  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  in  doctrine?  If  so,  then  ifr  is  impossible  for  it 
to  have  been  given  to  Missouri  for  that  reason,  for  it  is  well 
known  that  those  Synods  seperated  in  1881  on  account  of 
their  differences  of  views  on  the  doctrine  of  election. 

Or  is  it  perhaps  possible  to  hold  the  views  of  Ohio  in  1890, 
and  the  views  of  Missouri  in  1892  and  yet  never  change  one's 
views?  This  would  appeal- so  if  the  admissions  and  state- 
ments ot  Bev.  J.  M,  Smith  at  the  Free  Conference  at  Conover 
in  January  1894,  are  to  be  reconciled. 

Observe  also  that  in  this  extract,  Rev.  Bernheim  makes  the 
statement,  "If  such  arrangement  is  forced  to  be  made  (and 
it  looks  so  now)."  What,  or  who,,  was  forcing  such  arrange- 
ment? Remember  that  this  letter  was  written  a  month 
before  the  called  session  of  Synod  met  at  St.  James.  There 
is  but  one  explanation  for  this  statement  and  that  is,  that 
it  was  then  believed  that  Mr.  Hall's  proposition  would  be 
accepted  and  the  school  moved  to  Hickory,  and  prepara- 
tion was  being  made  for  that  event;  to  give  the  school  to 
Ohio  in  order  to  oppose  the  school  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  if 
located  in  Hickory.  This  is  the  same  spirit  always  shown  by 
the  Conover  pastors  in  their  efforts  to  have  the  school  at 
Conover,  even  it  they  would  have  to  give  it  over  to  the  enemy 
of  the  Tennessee  Synod  ;  as  they  hnve  done  in  the  case  of  the 
Missouri  Alliance  which  they  have  formed. 

That  the  people  of  the  Tennesse  Synod  may  understand 
just  what  has  been  done  by  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Concor- 


14  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

dia  College,  in  giving  away  the  property  in  their  trust;  and 
what  claims  Missouri  has  upon  that  property,  the  following 
is  quoted  trom  the  Minutes  of  the  English  Synod  of  Missouri, 
May  3—10,  1893.  pages  43,  44: 

"Concordia  College,  Conover,  Catawba  County,  North  Carolina." 

"  Pres.  Kuegele,  Rev.  Dallmann  and  Rev.  Prof.  Dau  gave  Synod  a.  history 
of  the  College.  It  is  in  short  as  follows:  Concordia  College  is  the  property 
of  an  association.  It  is  not  the  property  of  any  synod  or  church  body,  as 
has  been  erroneously  stated.  The  Tennessee  Synod  had  the  right  of  recom- 
mending the  theological  professor  at  the  institution,  and  formerly  sent  its 
beneficiaries  there.  Difficulties  arose  and  some  of  the  teachers  left,  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  withdrew  its  'fostering  care'  from  the  institution,  and  the 
Board  of  Trustees  applied  to  the  Mission  Board  of  the- German  Missouri 
Synod  at  St.  Louis  to  supply  the  institution  with  professors.  At  the  re- 
quest of  the  Board  for  English  Mission,  Rev.  Kuegele  and  Dallman  went  to 
Conover  in  December,  1891,  to  inspect  the  territory.  They  met  the  profess- 
ors who  had  left  and  gone  to  Hickory,  N.  C.  They  found  that  Concordia 
was  not  in  any  sense  an  institution  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  but  that  the 
Trustees  of  the  College  had  a  right  to  call  whomsoever  they  pleased,  since 
the  College  was  a  private  institution. 

The  following  resolutions  were  then  submitted  and  agreed  to  : 

"Resolutions  Between  the  Trustees  of  Concordia  College  and  the 

'  Missouri ans.'  "  . 

Resolved,  That  we  recommend  (1)  that  a  Piofessor  be  called  to  Concordia 
College,  €:nover;  N.  C,  from  the  Missourians,  to  be  President  of  Concordia 
College,  LHerary  Professor,  and  pa-stor  of  Concordia  Congregation,  to  have 
full  liberty  in  the  pulpit  and  at  the  altar  according  to  his  conscience  bound 
in  God's  Word.  (2)  That  young  men  be  enabled  to  receive  a  claesical  edu 
cation  here  at  Concordia  College  with  a  view  of  graduating  in  theology  at 
St.  Louis,  Mo.,  ot  Springfield,  111.  (3)  That  provision  be  made  for  the 
theological  education  of  young  men  who  cannot  be  required  to  take  a  full 
classical  course  so  that  they  may  enter  the  miuistry  after  graduating  at 
Concordia  College,  Conover.  N.  C. 

Carried  unanimously  by  the  whole  Board,  excepting  two  not  in  reach. 
[Signed]  F.  Kuegele, 

Wm.  Dallmann, 

C.  H.  Bernhelm,  Sec. 

Dec.  31 ,  1 891.  Board  of  Trustees  of  Concordia  College." 

"In  accordance  with  these  resolueions,  Rev.  W.  H.  T.  Dau,  of  Memphis, 
Tenn.,  was  called  and  accepted  the  position  of  President  and  Professor  at 
Concordia  College,  and  was  installed  there,  May  29,  1892.    July  31,   1892, 


The  Situation  in  North  Carolina,  IB 

Candidate  G..  A.  Romoser,  a  graduate  of  Concordia,  Seminery,  St.  Louis, 
was  installed  as  professor  at  Concordia  College.  From  all  that  Synod 
heard,  these  men  have  labored  faithfully  and  earnestly,  receiving-  very  mea- 
ger support.  Yet  their  labor  both  in  the  College  and  as  pastors  apparently 
has  been  blessed  of  God,  and  the  prospects  are  such  as  to  make  the  calling 
of  another  professor  imperative. 

The  following  communication  was  received  and  presented  to  Synod  : 

Whereas,  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Tennessee  Synod  at  its  last  conven 
tion,  assembled  in  Hickory,  N.  C,  1892,  did  withdraw  her  fostering  care 
from  Concordia,  College,  located  at  Conover;  and  whereas,  all  church  insti 
tutions  need  the  fostering  care  of  some  synod  to  rally  to  its  support  and 
help  ;  and  whereas,  a  number  of  the  ministers  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  are 
antagonizing  Concordia  College,  by  reason  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  having 
called- ministers  of  the  English  Synod  of  Missouri  as  President  and  Profess- 
or of  said  College: 

Therefore,  resolved,  first;  that  we  do  now  offer  and  place  Concordia  Col- 
lege under  the  control  and  fostering  care  of  the  English  Lutheran  Synod  of 
Missouri,  and  urge  said  Synod  to  accept  this  College  as  her  institution. 

Resolved,  second,  that  we  ask  the  Euglish  Synod  of  Missouri  to  appoint 
six  (6)  of  her  number  as  members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Concordia 
College,  to  co-operate  with  us  in  the  management  of  said  College. 

Resolved,  third,  that  we  need  at  the  opening  of  next  term  another  pro- 
fessor, and  we  ask  the  English  Synod  of  Missouri  to  call  him  and  'we  will 
confirm  their  action. 

Resolved,  fourth,  that  inasmuch  as  our  professors  are  not  adequately 
supported,  the  tuitionary  revenue  of  the  College  being  insufficient,  we  ask 
your  honorable  bodv  to  supplement  their  salaries. 

Resolved,  fifth,  should  the  above  action  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Con- 
cordia College  not  meet  with  the  approval  of  your  body,  then  we  ask  for 
the  appointment  from  you  of  a  certain  number  of  men  fully  commissioned 
and  authorized  to  negotiate  with  us  for  the  legal  transfer  of  Concordia 
College  to  become  the  property  of  your  honorable  body,  provided  that  it 
does  not  vitiate  the  basis,  constitution,  and  charter  of  said  College. 

Resolved,  sixth,  that  the  Secretary  transmit  to  the  President  of  the  Eng- 
lish Synod  of  Missouri  a  copy  of  this  action. 

Passed  in  the  College,  March  9th,  1898. 

C.  H.  Beunheim,  Secretary, 
Board  of  Trustees,  Concordia  College." 

"  The  entire  matter  was  referred  by  Synod  to  a  committee  of  five,  who' 
carefully  investigated  and  discussed  the  entire' matter.  The  repori  of  the 
committee  was  received  and  acted  upon  as  follows:  Synod  ratified  the 
agreement  between  Revs.  Kuegele,  Dallmann,  and  the  Board  of  Trustees  of 
Concordia  College.  Synod  furthermore  assumed  control  of  the  institution 
and  elected  the  following  six  gentlemen  as  Trustees  of  Concordia  College: 
Messrs.  Elijah  Coiner,  Theodore  Coyner,  of  Agusta  Co.,   Virginia,  J.  Hirbh, 


16  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

Washington,  D.  C,  Louis  Briggemann,  A.  J.  Hecker,  Baltimore,  Md.,  H.  H. 
Niemann,  Pitsnurg,  Pa." 

We  do  not  know  from  what  source,  Revs.  Kuegele,  Dall- 
mann,  and  Dau  Obtained  the  data  from  which  they  con- 
structed their  ''history  of  Concordia  College,"  but 
we  do  know  that  their  history  is  badly  at  fault.  They 
say  in  their  ''history :"  "Difficulties  arose,  and  some  of  the 
teachers  left,  the  Tennessee  Synod  withdrew  its  'fostering 
care'  from  the  institution,  and  the  Board  of  Trustees  applied 
to  the  Mission  Board  of  the  German  Missouri  Synod  at  St. 
Louis  to  supply  the  institution  with  professors." 

This  is  the  history  as  they  constructed  it.  The  facts  are 
these:  The  application  for  proffessors  was  made  by  the 
Board  ot  Trustees  and  Prof.  Dau  at  work  in  Conover,  six 
months  before  the  Tennessee  Synod  withdrew  its  "fostering 
care."  This  application  was  made  in  1891,  for  the  agree- 
ment between  the  Board  of  Trustees  and  the  "Missourians" 
is  dated  December  31,  1891 ;  but  the  meeting  of  the  Tennes- 
see Synod  at  which  it  withdrew  its  fostering  care,  was  held  in 
October  1892.  And,  futhermore,  the  reason  the  Tennessee 
Synod  withdrew  its  fostering  care  was  this  very  fact  that  the 
Board  of  Trustees  had  called  men  from  the  Missouri  Synod, 
and  had  filled  vacancies,  and  that  this  action  was  not  sub- 
mitted to  Synod,  for  its  endorsement  and  ratification.  We 
quote  the  following  action  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  on  the 
matter  of  this  withdrawal,  page  23,  minutes  of  1892: 

"  Report  of  Committee  on  Literary  Institutions." 

*' We,  the  undersigned  Committee  on  Literary  Institutions,  beg  leave  to 
make  the  following  report : 

We  have  had  placed  in  our  hands  Report  of  President  of  the  Board  of 
Trusteess  of  Concordia  College  and  the  Report  of  the  President  of  the  Fac- 
ulty. 

Upon  examination  of  the  Report  of  the  President  of  the  Board  of  Trus- 
tees, we  find  that  no  action  of  the  trustees  in  filling  vacancies  in  the  Board 
and  Faculty  (a  ;  appears  irom  the  Report  of  the  President  of  the  Faculty) 
in  the  interim  of  the  session  of  Synod,  has  been  submitted  to  this  Synod 
for  ratification  or  endorsement;  therefore,  we  recommend  that  the  Synod 
can  now  take  no  action  in  regard  to  the  further  fostering  care  of  this  insti- 
tution. J.  A.  Rudisill, 

R.  H.  Cline, 
J.  A.  Cromer." 


The  Situation  in  North  Carolina.  17 

Further,  they  say  that  they  found  "that  Concordia  was 
not  in  any  sense  an  institution  of  the  Synod."  Yet  six 
months  later  Prof.  Dau,  in  his  first  Catalogue  of  Concordia 
College,  says  it  is  the  only  school  under  the  fostering  care  of 
the  Tennessee  Synod.  Why  does  he  make  that  statement, 
when,  as  he  says  it  is  not  ir  any  sense  an  institution  of  the 
Synod?  Did  he  do  it  in  order  to  deceive  our  people  and 
catch  their  patronage?  Why  does  he  parade  that  statement 
when  according  to  his  "history"  it  was  not  in  any  sense  an 
institution  of  the  synod?  And,  why  is  it  that  those  who  went 
to  Hickory  and  accepted  Mr.  Hall's  proposition  and  went  to 
work  there  are  charged  by  the  Con  over  pastors,  and  the 
Missourians,  and  by  their  sympathizers,  with  working 
against  "Synod's  School,"  and  with  endeavoring  to  destroy 
"  Synod's  School?"  Why  make  all  this  noise  about  a  few 
men  leaving  a  little  "private"  concern  at  Conover?  These 
statements  were  made  to  vary  according  to  circumstances. 
If  the  interests  of  Conover  and  the  Missourians  were  better 
served  by  saying  it  was  a  private  school  then  that  state- 
ment was  made;  but  if  their  interests  were  better  served  by 
the  other  statement,  then  it  was  Synod's  school. 

The  statement  that  they  found  the  school,  "not  in  any 
sense  an  institution  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  "  is  false.  It 
'was,  in  some  sense,  an  institution  of  the  Synod.  The  prop- 
erty was  not  owned  by  the  Synod,  because  the  Synod  not 
being  an  incorporated  body,  can  not  own  property.  But 
the  sense  in  which  it  was  an  institution  of  the  Tennessee 
Synod  is  set  forth  in  Standing  Resolutions  of  the  Synod, 
Nos.  19  and  20,  which  we  here  quote: 

"Resolved  10.  That,  with  a  view  of  establishing  proper  relations  between 
Concordia  College,  situated  at  Conover,  N.  C,  and  the  Evangelical  Luthe- 
ran Tennessee  Synod,  we,  in  meeting  assembled,  agree,  l.v  that  whenever  a 
vacancy,  or  vacancies,  occur,  either  by  death,  resignation,  or  removal,  in 
the  Board  of  Trustees  or  in  the  faculty,  the  said  Synod  shall  have  the  right 
as  well  as  the  privilege  to  recommend  a  suitable  person,  or  persons,  to  fill 
such  vacancy  or  vacancies:  2.  that  the  Synod  shall  have  the  right  to  ap- 
point a  Board  of  Visitors,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  annually  to  visit  said 
school,  and  make  such  report  of  the  condition  of  the  school  to  each  session 
of  the  Synod,  as  be  deemed  most  advantageous;  3.  that  it  shall  bo  the  duty 
of  the  President  of  the  Faculty  to  make  a  report  annually  to  the  Synod, 
relative  to  moral  and  literary  condition  of  the  school,  which  report  shall 


\8  The  Situation  in  North  G&rolm&. 

also  be  signed  by  the  secretary  of  the  faculty ;  4.  that  the  President  of  the 
Board  of  Trustees  shall  also  make  an  annual  report  to  Synod,  in  regard  to 
financial  condition  of  the  school,  which  report  shall  likewise  be  signed  by 
the  secretary  of  the  Board  of  Trustees;  5.  that  this  school  shall  be  continu- 
ed and  conducted  as  a  church  institution,  under  such  rules  and  regulations, 
as  may  be  instituted  by  the  Board  of  Trustees,  in  accordance  with  the  char- 
ter, and  the  Confessions  of  the  Church  as  set  forth  in  the  Christian  Book  of 
Concord,  each  teacher,  instructor,  or  professor,  taking  an  obligation  not  to 
teach  anything  in  said  school  that  is  contrary  to  said  Confessions. 

These  stipulations  or  proposition  shall  be  valid  and  in  forcp.  provided 
the  said  Synod  shall  acquiesce  and  is  disposed  to  lend  said  institution  its 
fosteriug  care  and  encouragement,  as  well  as  its  influence  and  moral  force; 
provided,  that  if  the  Synod  shall  fail,  after  notice,  to  recommend,  in  due 
time,  a  suitable  person  or  persons  to.  fill  such  vacancy  or  vacancies,  the 
proper  authorities  of  said  institution  shall  proceed  to  fill  such  vacancy  or 
vacancies. 

Resolved  20.  That  we,  as  a  Synod,  accept  the  propositions  made  to  us 
by  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Concordia  College,  and  that  in  consideration  of 
the  rights  and  privileges  therein  granted,  we  will  lend  to  said  institution 
our  fostering  care,  influence,  and  mora),  support. — See  Minutes  of  1883, 
page  18" 

We  find  some  very  strange  and  remarkable  statements 
under  "Resolutions  between  the  Board  of  Trustees  of  Con- 
cordia College  and  the  'Missourians.'  "  "Resolved  that  we  rec- 
ommend (1)  that  a  professor  be,  called  from  the  Missourians, 
to  be  President  of  Concordia  College  and  Pastor  of  Con- 
cordia Congregation."  To  whom  was  this  recommenda- 
tion addressed?  Who  was  advised  in  this  recommenda- 
tion? Not  the  Board  of  Trustees;  for  they  were  the  ones 
that  were  doing  the  resolving.  Not  Concordia  Congrega- 
tion for  it  could  not  call  a  professor.  The  only  thing  in 
it  is  this,  that  we  resolve  to  recommend  to  ourselves— i.  e. 
Board  and  "Missourians"— that  we  call  a  Missourian  as 
President  and  professor  of  Concordia  College,  and  pastor  ot 
Concordia  Congregation,  Here  we  have  the  remarkable 
statement  that  two  Missourians,  Revs.  Kuegele  and  Dall- 
mann  together  with  the  Board  of  a  College,  called  a  Missou- 
rian pastor  of  a  Tennessee  Synod  Congregation.  The  Luth- 
eran idea  is  that  the  congregation  call  the  pastor ;  here  we 
see  that  the  Board  of  Trustees  and  the  "MissouHans"  ar- 
ranged this  matter.  It  may  be  said  that  it  was  only  a 
recommendation— this  is  not  true  for  it  is  the  same  action 
that  called  a  professor— and  if  it  were  true  that  it  was  only  a 
recommendation,    what    right    or    what    business  had  two 


The  Situation  in  North  Carolina,        ,  19 

Missourians  here  recommending  a  Tennessee  Synod  Congre- 
gation to  call  a  Missourian  ? 

Another  remarkable  statement  we  find  under  Resolutions 
etc,  is  this:  "Carried  unanimously  by  the  whole  Board,  ex- 
cepting two  not  in  reach"  The  writer  knows  of  four  mem- 
bers of  the  Board,  who  were  in  reach  that  were  not  in  that 
meeting,  viz.  Silas  Smyre,  Revs.  J.  A.  Rudisill,  J.  C.  Moser, 
and  A.  L.  Grouse,  and  these  were  not  informed  of  the  meeting. 
But  had  these  four  perhaps  been  expelled  by  Revs.  Smith  and 
Bernheim  and  their  places  filled  by  men  whom  they  could 
manipulate  for  this  purpose  of  calling  a  Missourian? 

It  is  to  such  proceedings  as  these  above  given  that  we  refer 
when  we  say  that  that  call  was  manipulated.  We  do  not 
know  what  action  the  congregation  took  in  this  mafter  of 
calling  its  Missouri  pastor  afterwards,  if  any  was  taken ; 
nor  would  any  action  on  its  part  afterwards  change  the  fact 
or  its  manipulation;  for  we  see  from  their  own  published' 
statement  that  the  Board  of  Trustees  and  Missourians  had 
arranged  the  whole  matter  for  a  professor  and  a  pastor  in 
one  resolution — and  that  he  be  the  same  man  and  that  he 
be  a  Missourian. 

We  have  thus  far  reviewed  the  history  of  the  school  ques- 
tion in  the  Tennessee  Synod,  as  an  answer  to  the  question, 
How  did  Missouri  get  control  of  Concordia  College?  We  will 
again  answer  that  question  in  a  few  words.  There  had  been 
some  trouble  in  the  Tennessee  Synod  on  the  location  of 
school  for  about  sixteen  years,  brought  about  principally  by 
Rev.  J.  M.  Smith's  determination  to  have  the  school  at  Con- 
over  at  all  hazards  and  against  the  expressed  wishes  of  a 
majority  of  the  people.  This  trouble  was  very  greatly  ex- 
tended at  the  called  session  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  at  St. 
James  in  1890,  by  this  same  spirit  manifested  by  Revs. 
Smith  and  Bernheim.  The  Missourians,  taking  advantage 
of  this  disaffection  in  the  Tennessee  Synod,  and  aided  by 
members  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  who  played  the  part  of 
traitors  to  the  Tennessee  Synod,  secured  control  of  the 
school. 


20  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

This  is  a  true  statement  of  the  facts  in  the  case,  no  matter 
with  what  smooth-tongued  flattery,  or  honeyed  words,  these 
Missourians  may  come  to  our  people  of  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
and  profess  that  their  intention  in  coming  into  this  part  of 
the  country  was,  to  endeavor  to  reconcile  differences  and  to 
heal  divisions  and  to  work  for  the  advancement  of  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod.  We  give  them  credit  for  more  common  sense 
and  tact  than  they  have  displayed,  it  this  latter  were  their 
real  design.  If  they  came  to  harmonize  discordant  elements, 
which  Revs.  Kuegele  and  Dallmann  stated  to  Revs.  J.  C. 
Moser  and  J.  P.  Miller  at  Hickory,  December  31,  1891,  was 
their  object,  they  have  tailed  most  signally,  lor  the  divis- 
ion is  greater  to-day  than.when  they  came;  and,  so  far  as  it 
appears,  have  not  made  a  single  effort  to  harmonize  ele- 
ments at  variance.  Their  course  among  our  people,  so  iar, 
has  only  complicated  matters  and  has  rendered  adjustment 
much  more  difficult. 

Such,  Prof.  Moser  assured  them  would  be  the  result  should 
they  come  into  our  Synod  and  ally  themselves  with  the  Con- 
over  faction.  He  further  urged  them  that  if  they  meant 
peace,  if  they  really  wished  to  heal  differences,  and  adjust 
difficulties,  they  should  stay  away.  They  were  not  encour- 
oged  to  come  as  was  staled  by  Rev.  Dallmann  at  Conover, 
June  15,  1893,  and  has  also  been  stated  by  others.  If  these 
men  were  in  any  way  encouraged,  it  was  done  privately  and 
not  by  Revs.  Moser  and  Miller. 

XI 

Mow    did    the   Missourians    get    into    Tennessee 

Synod  Congregations? — The  Lutheran  idea  is  that  the 
pastor  becomes  such  by  virtue  of  his  call  from  a  congrega- 
tion ;  and  the  normal  relation  is  that  pastor  and  congrega- 
tion belong  to  the  same  Synod.  We  have  the  abnormal  con- 
dition here  in  the  Tennesse  Synod,  of  Tennessee  Synod  con- 
gregations having  Missouri  pastors;  and  the  writer  was  in- 
formed by  the  Rev.  W.  A.  Lutz,  during  the  Free  Conference 
at  Hickory,  October,  1893,  that  it  was  a  principle  of  the 
Missouri  Synod,  to  take  charge  of  all  vacant  congregations 


The  Situ  fit  ion  in  North  Carolina.  21 

that  they  could  get  hold  of  without  any  reference  to  their 
Synodical  connection,  and  cited  Knoxville,  Term.,  as  a  recent 
example,  illustrating  that  principle.  And  we  shall  have  oc- 
casion as  we  proceed  to  give  other  examples  illustrating  the 
same  principle.  This  principle  of  course  always  either  drags 
the  congregation  into  the  Missouri  Synod  as  a  whole,  or 
divides  the  congregation ;  generally  the  latter  is  the  result. 
We  have  already  indicated  how  a  Missourian  became  pastor 
of  Concordia  Congregation. 

In  the  minutes  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  October  1892,  page 
8,  the  President  of  Synod,  Rev.  J.  Paul  Stirewalt,  in  his  re- 
port makes  this  statement :  "I  understand  that  Rev.  Prof. 
Romoser,  a  member  of  the  English  Evangelical  Lutheran 
Synod  of  Missouri,  has  been  installed  pastor  of  Sharon  and 
St.  Martin's  Congregations.  As  these  congregations  are  in 
rather  an  abnormal  condition,  being  served  by  a  pastor  not 
at  this  time  in  connection  with  our  Synod,  [  would  here  sug- 
gest that  this  matter  be  investigated." 

No  action  wTas  taken  by  Synod  on  this  suggestion  of  the 
President,  though  a  private  letter  had  been  written  by  the 
secretary  of  the  congregation,  St.  Martin's,  urging  that 
Synod  take  some  action.  Then  this  congregation  sent  a 
petition  to  the  North  Carolina  Conference  of  Tennessee  Syn- 
od in  December  1892  urging  some  action  ;  and  Conference 
appointed  a  committee  to  go  to  St.  Martin's.  This  com- 
mittee went,  but  accomplished  nothing.  Conference  in  April 
1893  appointed  the  second  committee,  Revs.  A.  L.Crouse  and 
J'.  C.  Moser,  who  went  to  St,  Martin's  Church  on  Tuesday, 
July  25,  1893,  investigated  the  matter,  and  reported  to 
Conference,  that  they  found  that  the  call  was  irregular. 
Conference  advised  St.  Martin's  to  call  a  pastor  of  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod.  From  the  evidence  taken  by  this  committe? 
and  redd  before  Conference  it  appeared  that  Rev.  Romoser 
had  been  secured  for  St.  Martin's  by  the  manipulations  of 
Rev.  C.  H.  Bernheim. 

The  following  is  the  action  of  the  Conference  in  this  matter : 

"REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE   UPON   TiJE   DIFFICULTY  AT  ST.  MARTIN'S  (lREDEL.ll..)" 

"  We,  your  committee,   upon  this  matter,  report,  that  we  visited  that  con 


22  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina* 

gregation  last  Tuesday,  and  held  a  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
information.  Nearly  all  the  members  were  present,  and  we  learned  that  the 
disturbance  has  grown  oat  of  dissatisfaction  with  the  call,  which  was  ex- 
tended to  Rev.  Prof.  G.  A.  Romoser,  who  has  been  preaching  there  several 
months.  This  call,  we  learned,  from  statements  made  by  all  parties,  was 
irregular. 

We  therefore  reccommend  that  Conference  advise  all  the  members  of  that 
congregation  to  unite  in  calling  for  their  pastor  a  minister  from  the  Tennes- 
see Synod,  or  one  who  will  become  a  member  of  our  Synod,  believing  from 
what  we  learned  that  that  will  give  satisfaction  to  the  dissatisfied  members 
and  restore  peace  and  harmony  in  the  congregation. 

And  that  they  be  advised  to  call  a  congregalional  meeting  as  soon  as 
possible  and  attend  to  this  matter.  »  Respectfully, 

A.  L.  Chouse, 
J.  C.  Moser. 

After  this  action  oi  Conference,  Rev.  Romoser  withdrew 
by  request  of  a  majority  of  St.  Martin's  Congregation.  Since 
bhen  the  congregation  has  been  supplied  by  Prot.  W.  P. 
Cline.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  deep  regret  to  state  that  there  is 
yet  a  division  in  that  congregation,  caused  by  this  Missouri 
interference  in  the  work  of  the  Tennesse  Synod. 

With  reference  to  the  Missouri  proceedings  at  Sharon  Con- 
gregation, Iredell  County,  N.  C,  the  following  facts  were 
learned  from  Rev.  D.  J.  Settlemyre,  who  will  vouch  for  them. 
The  call  which  Rev.  Romoser  accepted  was  not  regular.  No 
congregational  meeting  was  held  and  no  vote  taken.  Mr. 
Henry  Setzer  requested  Rev.  Settlemyre  to  announce  that 
'' we  have  called  Romoser.''  He  declined  the  only  call  ever 
extended  and  that  required  him  to  locate  in  Iredell.  What 
he  did  accept  was  not  a  call  but  an  arrangement  of  several 
men.  And  furthermore,  the  Constitution  of  Sharon  Congre- 
gation which  was  adopted  without  a  dissenting  voice  on 
December  24,  1890,  required  that  the  pastor  belong  to  the 
Tennessee  Synod.  In  order  that  Rev.  Romoser  a  Missourian 
could  be  installed  as  pastor  the  Constitution  of  the  congre- 
gation had  to  be  gotten  rid  of  and  so  Romoser  declared  it 
"not  Sharon's  Constitution,"  though  unanimously  adopted 
by  the  congregation,  and  acknowledged  by  them,  for  at  least 
one  year  and  a  half,  as  their  Constitution.  Mr.  Reuben  Cline 
who  came  with  Rev.  Romoser  to  Sharon  a  few  days  before 
the  installation  of  Romoser,  and  not  finding  the  Constitu- 
tion in  the  church,  called  on  Rev.  Settlemvre  who  lived  near 


Tlit*  Sitmition  in  North  Carolina.  2$ 

the  church,  for  the  Constitution  of  Sharon  Congregation, 
and  Rev,  Settlemy re  delivered  it  to  them.  Mr.  Cline  knew 
that  it  was  Sharon's  Constitution,  asked  for  it  and  received 
it,  as  such. 

In  reference  to  St.  John's  Church,  Catawba  County,  N.  C, 
now  served  by  Prof.  Dau,  a  Missourian,  the  writer  was  in- 
formed by  Mr.  Silas  Wike,  John  H.  Mouer  and  Win.  A.  Hoke, 
Claremont,  N.  C,  and  Daniel  L.  Wike  of  Catawba,  N.  C,  all 
being  members  at  St.  John's,  that  the  call  was  secured  large- 
ly through  the  interference  of  Revs.  J.  M.  Smith  and  C.  H. 
Bernheim,  that  both  were  present  when  the  call  was  extend- 
ed and  "electioneered"  for  a  Missourian. 

That  this  action  of  the  congregation,  calling  a  Missourian, 

caused  division  in  St  John's,  the  following  petition  presented 

to  the  last  session  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  September,  1893, 

clearly  shows.    In  Minutes  of  Tennessee  Synod,   September, 

1893,  page  12,  under  Report  of  Committee  on  Letters  and 

Petitions,  we  find : 

"No.  3  is  a  petition  troin  St.  John's  Evangelical  Lutheran  Congregation, 
Catawba  County,  N.  C,  signed  by  thirty-seven  of  her  members  in  which  they 
state,  'that  a  number  of  their  members  have  called  Kev.  W.  H.  T.  Dau,  of 
the  Missouri  Synod,  as  pastor.  That  the  said  W.  H.  T.  Dau  has  not  con- 
nected himself  with  our  Synod,  and  has  served  a  congregation  as  its  pastor 
for  about  eighteen  months,  and  will  not  promise  to  connect  himself  with  the 
Evangelical  Lutheran  Tennessee  Synod,  and  even  denounces  our  pastors  as 
un-Lutheran.  We  being  loyal  to  the  Tennessee  Synod,  the  Syiwpd  of  our 
fathers,  can  not,  under  the  circumstances,  conscientiously  worship  with  the 
said  W.  H.  T.  Dau,  noi-  regard  him  as  our  pastor.  We  therefore  ask  vou  to 
advise  us  what  to  do  under  these  sad  conditions.'  " 

This  petition  was  answered  by  the  following  resolution  : 

l*  Resolved,  that  a  committee  of  three  be  appointed  to  investigate  that 
matter,  and  give  the  petitioners  such  advice  as  they  may  deem  proper." 

The  committee  was:  Revs.  J.  C.  Moser,  R.  A.  Yoder,  and  J. 
P,  Miller.  And  this  is  the  advice  the  committee  gave  the  pe- 
titioners. It  was  publicly  read  to  them,  or  most  of  them,  at 
Wike's  school  house,  November  4,  1893  : 

"To  the  brethern  of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  of  St.  John's  con- 
gregation, Catawba  County,  North  Carolina,  who  petitioned  the  Evangeli- 
cal Lutheran  Tennessee  Synod  for  advice  : 

Dear  Brethren:— The  Synod  after  hearing  your  petition  referud  the  mat- 
ter of  giving  advice  to  us  as  a  committee.     We,  therefore,  advise: 

That,  whereas,  you  can  not conscientiously  worship  at  St.  John's  under 


24  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

its  present  pastor,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Missouri  Synod,  who  for  doctrin- 
al reasons  will  not  connect  himself  with  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Tennessee 
Synod,  and  who  on  the  subject  of  Election  teaches  a  doctrine  which  is  new 
to  the  Lutheran  Church,  and  which  is  generally  regarded  as,  at  least,  Cal- 
vinistic  in  its  tendency ;  you  remain  faithful  and  loyal  to  the  Tennessee  Syn- 
od, that  you  organize  yourselves  into  a  congregation,  and  that  you  call  a 
pastor  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  or  one  who  will  connect  himself  with  it." 

With  reference  to  these  irregularities  in  our  congregations, 
the  Tennessee  Synod  in  1893  passed  the  following,  which  is 
iound  on  page  15,  Tennessee  Synod  Minutes  of  1893 : 

"  Whereas,  some  trouble  and  irregularities  threaten  some  of  the  churches 
connected  with  this  Synod,  because  of  preachers  of  other  religious  Societies, 

Resolved,  that  we  earnestly  advise  all  congregations  and  people  in  con- 
nection with  this  Synod,  to  avoid  pastors  not  in  connection  with  this  Syn- 
od, except  such  as  are  recommended  by  this  Synod  or  by  its  President." 

The  writer  was  informed  by  Eev.  J.  A.  Rudisill  in  October, 
1893,  that  Rev.  Dau  was  pastor  at  Glen  Alpiue,  upon  the 
condition  that  he  become  a  member  of  the  Tennessee  Synod, 

This  information  was  given  him  by  Mrs.  Edward  Sigmon 
of  the  congregation  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  J.  J.  Sigmon,  a 
member  of  the  Council,  who  assented  to  it. 

That  the  Missourians  are  proselyters,  and  that  their  whole 
effort  here  is  a  scheming  one  to  extend  the  territorry  of  the 
Missouri  Synod  into  congregations  of  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
and  finally  to  absorb  the  Synod,  and  that  they  never  had 
any  intention  of  connecting-  themselves  with  the  Tennessee 
Synod, %e  have  believed  and  affirmed  all  the  while  since  their 
coming  into  North  Carolina;  and  our  opinion  is  based  upon 
the  following: 

1 .  In  the  outset  they  dictated  terms  upon  which  they 
would  condescend  to  connect  themselves  with  the  Tennessee 
Synod,  such  terms  as  would  practically  make  the  Tennessee 
Synod  Missourian — i.  e.  ''whenever  the  Tennessee  Synod 
would  withdraw  from  the  United  Synod  of  the  South,  and 
agree  with  them  in  doctrine  and  practice;"  of  course,  they 
wTould  connect  themselves  then—when  the  Tennessee  Synod 
would  become  Missourian. 

2.  They  have  now  been  in  Tennessee  Synod  congregations 
for  about  two  years,  and  they  have  never  made  application 
to  be  received  into  connection  with  our  Svnod. 


The  Situation  in  North  ( nrolinn.  25 

XXX 

But  wlio  are  these  Missouriaiis,  these  disturbers 
of  the  Church?    What  manner  of  men  are  they? 

The  German  Missouri  Synod  is  a  very  large  arid  influential 
Synod  in  connection  with  the  Sy nodical  Conference.  The 
English  Evangelical  Lutheran  Synod  of  Missouri  and  other 
states  is  a  small  Synod,  and  only  about  five  years  old.  It  is 
also  in  connection  with  the  K\  nodical  Conference;  and  the 
"  Missourians"  who  are  operating  in  this  section  belong  to 
this  English  Missouri  Synod.  We  remark  in  passing  that 
Dr\  P.  C.  Henkel  was  never  a  member  of  the  English  Synod  of 
Missouri,  he  was  not  in  its  organization,  when  in  the  West, 
as  has  been  reported  ;  because  it  did  not  exist  then.  He  was 
in  an  organization  called  the  Knglish  Conference  of  the  Mis- 
souri Synod.  When  we  speak  of  the  Missouri  Synod  as  to  its 
methods,  spirit  etc.,  we  mean  both  the  English  and  the  Ger- 
man Missouri  Synods;  because  they  are  one  as  to  methods, 
principles,  doctrine  etc.,  have  many  things  in  common,  and 
both  belong  to  the  same  general  body— in  a  word,  they 
are  genuinely  Missourhin  whether  English  or  German. 

Missouri  is  regarded  as  a  disturbing  and  proselyting  Syn- 
od, not  only  here,  but  also  at  other  places.  She  is  regarded 
as  arrogant  and  egotistic,  not  only  by  pastors  of  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod,  but  also  by  many  other  Lutherans.  Rev.  J. 
Nicum,  in  the  Lutheran  Church  Review  of  April  1893,  pages 
178  and  180,  in  an  article,  "Professor  Graebner's  History," 
says : 

"  Before  entering  upon  a  more  detailed  examination  of  the  book  it  is  nec- 
essary to  remark  that  the  writer  (Prof  Graebner)  is  the  editor  and  defender 
of  the  publication  of  Rev.  J.  (irosse  of  Addison,  Lis.,  entitled,  'Unterseheid- 
ungslehren/  in  which  it  is  charged  that  all  Lutherans  outside  the  Synodical 
Conference,  and  with  the  ex  >eptiou  of  a  few  pastors  and  churches,  in  Ger- 
many and  Australia,  are  Romanish.  Zwinglian,  Syncretists,  Unionists,  Syn- 
ergists, etc., — in  short,  errorists  a,nd  heterdox,  and  claimed  that  only  the 
less  than  half  a  million  of  Missourians  in  the  world  are  the  true  Lutheran 
Church. 

Much  as  vve  rejoice  in  the  fact  that  this  large  division  of  our  Church  has  at 
last  taken  up  the  study  of  history,  we  must  on  the  other  hand  regret  that 
the  work  has  been  undertake?)  by  a  man  whose  judgment  is  biased  and  who 
treats  persons  and  events  from  the  very  narrow  and  exclusive  standpoint  of 
Missouri.  *  *  *  *  One  of  the  impressions  left  upon  the  miurt  of 
the  careful  reader  of  this  book  is.  that  Prof,   Graebner  considers  it   a  great 


26  Tlw  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

pity  that  Muhlenberg  and  men  of  his  kind  were  the  successful  organizers  of 
the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  Country,  and  that  a  professor  of  I  he  Gnesio — 
Missouri  stamp  like  Pieper  or  Graebner,  would  have  accomplished  this  task 
so  much  better.  Alas  for  the  Lutheran  Church  in  this  Country  if  it  had 
fallen  (o  the  lot  of  these  men  to  be  its  founders !  " 

Dr.  Grau,  professor  in  the  University  of  Koenigsberg,  Ger- 
many, in  an  article  entitled.  "The  feril  of  Missouri,"  which 
appeared  in  the  Lutheran,  November  26,  1885,  says : 

"The  Missouri  Propaganda  in  the  German  State  Churches,  we  also  cen- 
sure as  a  course  entirely  un-Lutheran,  but  rather  of  a  Reformed  sectarian 
character.  Of  such  interferences  in  foreign  spheres,  Calvinists  and  Crypto- 
Calvinists  used  to  be,  and  Methodists  and  Baptists  are  at  present  still 
guilty.  The  Lutheran  practice  is  for  one  to  maintain  God's  Word  and  let 
its  light  shine  in  one's  own  place  and  office,  and  to  commit  the  rest  to  God." 

We  quote  the  following  from  the  Lutheran  of  April  6, 
1893. 

''Some  Light  Upon  the  New  Union  in  the  Northwest." 


{Translated  from  " Herald  & i  Zeitschrift,"  of  April  1,  1893.) 


"  An  article  in  Lnthardt's  '  Kirchenzeitung,'  about  the  new  union  of  Syn- 
ods in  the  Northwest,— which  appeared  in  that  paper  about  two  months 
ago,  has  evidently  touched  the  Missouri  papers  very  unpleasantly,  so 
that  they  cannot  get  to  an  end  with  their  protests  against  it. 

hi  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  some  of  our  readers,  who  are  anxious  bo 
read  the  article  referred  to,  we  herewith  reproduce  it  without  comment: 

'The  organization  of  the  now  general  body  composed  of  certain  German 
Lutheran  Synods  in  the  Northwest,  to  which  brief  reference  was  made  in 
this  paper,  recently,  is  an  event  of  such  jireat  importance,  that  'O-ur  readers 
must  excuse  us  of  refering  to  it  again.  We  must  bear  in  mind,  that  this  is 
an  occurrence  that  has  ta.ken  place  on  the  territory  of  the  Synodical  Con- 
ference (Missouri).  The  three  Synods  which  have  united  in  the  organiza- 
tion of  this  general  body,  are  members  of  the  Synodical  Conference,  of  which 
body  the  Missouri  Synod,  and  a  very  .small  English  Synod,  are  the  only 
other  members.  From  this  it  is  manifest,  that  a  new  general  body  has  been 
organized  within  the  Synodical  Conference,  and  that  Missouri  has  been  ex- 
cluded from  this  new  body !        *        *        '"'        *        * 

It  may  well  be  asked,  why  has  such  a  general  body  been  organized — in  the 
bosom  of  the  Synodical  Conference?  Why  do  the  Synods  of  the  Synodical 
Conference  form  a  bond  of  union,  to  the  exclusion  of  Missouri? 

The  answer  to  this  question  is  to  "be  sought  in  the  assumptions  of  Mis- 
souri. It  is  notorious,  that  Missouri  does  not  only  treat  uncharitably 
those  Synods  that  do  not  belong  fco  the  Synodical  Conference — although — 
as  Missouri  looks  upon  it,  their  very  love  for  these  people  prompts  them  to 
judge  them  severely,  and  to  condemn  them  so  unmercifully, — but  that  it 
even,  in  many  respects,  conducts  itself  in  a  very  unbrotherly  way  towards 
the  Synods  that  are  connected  with  if:  For  instance,  Missouri  trespasses 
upon  the  Home  Mission  work  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  by  esiablishing  con- 
gregations, where  the  Wisconsin  Svnod  first  took  hold  of  the  work,  and 
thus  drives  out  the  men  who  are  working  in  behalf  of  the  Wisconsin  Synod. 


Tlw  Situation  in  North  Carolina.  27 

During  the  past  yPar,  the  Missionary  Superintendent  of  the  latter,  com- 
plained to  his  Synod,  of  such  interferences.  The  very  same  thing  was  done 
■  in  the  department  of  education.  And  in  all  these  movfments,  Missouri 
seems  to  have  had  its  eye  upon  the  Wisconsin  Synod,  which  is,  next  to  it, 
the  strongest  in  the  Synodical  Conference.  The  organization  of  this  general 
body  within  the  Synodical  Conference,  and  the  closer  union  of  the  three  Syn- 
ods with  each  other,  is  therefore  to  oe  looked  upon  as  a  sort  of  league  for 
mutual  protection  against  Missouri.  And  the  final  result  will  be— the  disso- 
lution of  the  Synodical  Conference.  Missouri,  which,  a  few  years  ago,  gath- 
ered around  itself  the  strongest  Synods  of  the  West,  will,  before  very  long, 
stand  alone.  Owing  to  the  controversy  about  Predestination  it  repelled 
Ohio,  and  the  large  Norwegian  Synod  and  now  it  is  alienating  even  thos-e 
Synods,  which  at  one  time  were  found  willing  to  swallow  the  bitter  Missou- 
ri-Calvinistic  pill.'" 

The  foregoing  quotations,  serve  to  show  what  trhese  Mis- 
sourians  are,  in  the  estimation  of  other  people,  who  are  cer- 
tainly not  prejudiced  against  them  on  account  of  the  school 
trouble  here  in  North  Carolina. 

Bat  what  doctrinal  views  do  these  Missonrians 
hold  that  differ  from  the  Lutheran  Church  in- 
cluding the  Tennessee  Synod,  that  make  them 
call  all  others,  not  of  themselves.  erroristsP 
They  hold  a  view  on  the  doctrine  of  Election,  or  Predesti- 
nation, which  differs  in  a  vital  point  from  that  which  the 
Lutheran  Church  has  held  and  confessed  for  three  hundred 
years.  They  tell  our  people  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  that 
they  hold  nothing  differing  from  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Ten- 
nessee Synod  on  that  question.  If  that  is  so,  and  the  Tennes- 
see Synod  holds  the  pure  faith,  in  their  opinion,  then  why  are 
they  here  doing  Missionary  work  in  congregations  of  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod?  What  is  wrong  with  the  Old  Tennessee  Synod 
that  the  English  Synod  of  Missouri  sends  men  and  mon- 
ey info  this  section  to  aid  a  school  in  opposition  to  the  Ten- 
nessee Synod  and  to  organize  congregations  in  the  borders 
ot  Tennesse  Synod  congregations  and  out  of  their  material? 
Is  there  .not  destitution  of  Lutheranism  enough  in  many 
sections  of  our  country,  where  these  Missourians  could  more 
profitably  spend  their  money  than  here  in  a  pure  Lutheran 
section?  Upon  what  grounds  can  they  justify  their  opera- 
tions here  except  that :fhev  have  some  different  doctrines  to 
set  forth  and  inculcate**   \Y4iy  not  take  virgin  soil  in  which 


9 A 


The  Situation  in  ^oi-th  Carolina. 


to  try  the  growth  of  their  new  doctrine?  Because  it  is  easier 
proselyting  Lutherans,  than  others,  when  the  doctrine 
comes  under  the  name  of  Lutheran  ;  and  because  this  process 
is  easier  than  converting  the  heathen. 

We  shall  set  forth  the  Missouri  doctrine  ot  election ;  and 
then,  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  Confessions  of  the  Luther- 
an Church,  and  how  the  Church  has  interpreted  the  Confess- 
ions, and  what  the  Tennessee  Synod  has  always  held  on  this 
subject. 

What  Missouri  holds  on  this  doctrine  must  be  learned 
from  her  own  publications.  Rev.  Kuegele  in  his  first  thesis 
on  this  doctrine  says : 

"  The  doctrine  of  the  election  of  grace  as  tought  and  defended  by  Missou- 
rians  most  be  learned  from  Missouri's  own  publications." 

Therefore,  according  to  this  thesis,  what  the  Missouri  pas- 
tors operating  in  this  section  say  in  reference  to  Missouri's 
doctrine  is  not  reliable;  because  that  doctrine  must  be  learn- 
ed from  Missouri  publications.  And  the  statements  oi  their 
doctrine,  to  our  people,  by  these  Missouri  pastors,  seem 
abundantly  to  verify  this  thesis.  It  must  have  the  stamp, 
ex  cathedra,  upon  it  before  it  will  be  recognized  as  the  genu- 
ine article.  Let  us  therefore  proceed  to  examine  some  of  the 
stamped  goods. 

Here  we  give  the  genuine  Missouri  article.  We  quote  first 
from  Missouri's ''Thirteen  Theses  on  Election,"' adopted  by 
the  Missouri  Synod  in  1881.    Thesis  9  says: 

"  We  believe,  teach  and  confess :  1 .  That  election  does  not  consist  in  the 
mere  fact  that  God  foresaw  which  men  will  secure  salvation :  2.  That 
election  is  also  not  the  mere  purpose  of  God  to  redeem  and  sa.ve  men,  .vhich 
would  make  it  universal  and  extend  in  general  to  all  men;  8.  That  elec- 
tion does  not  embrace  those  'which  believe  for  awhile'  (Luke  8:  18);  4. 
That  election  is  not  a  mere  decree  of  God  to  lead  to  bliss  all  those  who 
would  believe  unto  their  end.        *        *        *        " 

No.  10  of  the  same  Theses  says  • 

"  We  believe,  teach  and  confess,  that  the  cause  which  moved  God  to  elect", 
is  alone  His  grace  and  the  meiit  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  not  anything  good 
foreseen  by  God  in  the  elect,  not  even  faith  foreseen  in  them  by  God." 

Again  we  quote  from  the  Theses  by  Rev.  Kuegele,  prepared 
for  discussion  at/ Free  Conference  at  Conover,  January  3, 
1894:  :  ;  '-  . 

"V.    Election  is  not  a  result  of  the  foreseen  salvation  of  the  elect,  but 


The  Situation  in  i\orth  ( ''nvolinn.  2U 

rather  preceeds  it  and  is  a  cause  or"  their  Salvation  ;  yet  not  the  only  cause, 
but  a  cause  among  other  causes." 

From  the  same : 

"VII.  By  faith  we  know  that  we  are  ordained  to  eternal  life,  and  in  no 
other  way  can  we  know  it." 

Now  as  comments  upon  these  theses  we  shall  quote  from 
their  writers.  But  belore  referring  to  them,  we  desire  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  in  Thesis  No.  10,  above  quoted, 
that  "faith"  is  excluded,  and  that  it  is  not  included  in 
Thesis  No.  ¥. 

Dr,  Walther  in  a  sermon  on  Predestination,  translated  by 

August  Crull,  St.  Louis,  Missouri,  1883.  on  page  14  says: 

"Behold,  my  dear  hearers,  God  has  not  foreseen  in  His  elect  anything 
good  which  he  might  have  regarded  and  which  therefore  might  have  induc- 
ed Hira  io  elect  them  ;  on  the  contrary,  he  saw  them  lying  in  the  blood  of 
their  sins,. and  then  he  said  :  '  Ye  shall  live ! '  Nor  has  God  regarded  that 
they  were  already  acceptable  to  Him,  and  elected  them  for  that  reason  ;  on 
the  contrary,  as  our  text  has  it, 'He  hath  made  them  accepted  in  the  be- 
loved.' Nor  has  God  regarded  that  by  repentance  and  conversion  they  had 
already  turned  away  from  the  world,  and  elected  them  on  that  account;  mi 
the  contrary,  as  Christ  says  to  His  disciples,  He  has  'chosen  them  out  of 
the  avorld,'  consequently  out  of  the  number  of  unbelievers,  among  whom 
He  saw  them.  God,  therefore,  has  not  regarded  even  faith  itself  nor  elected 
them  on  account  of  their  faith  ;  on  the  contrary,  because  no  man  can  acquire 
faith  bv  his  own  efforts.  He  has  determined  from  eternity  to  work  faith  in 
them  through  the  gospel  and  to  preserve  them  in  faith  unto  the  end." 

Prof.  F.   Pieper,   writing  for  the  Sv nodical  Conference,  in 

"The  Distinctive  Doctrines  and  Usages  of  the  General  Bodies 

of  the  Evangelical  Lutheran  Church  in  Uninted  States,  says, 

pages  158,  159: 

"Relation  of  eternal  election  to  the  faith  of  the  elect.  In  the  decree  of 
eternal  predestination  the  faith  of  the  elect  is  not  presupposed  (as  is  as- 
sumed by  the  theorv  that  predestination  took  place  in  foresight  of  faith.') 
but  included.  For  God  did  not  first  elect  them  to  salvation  absolutely  and 
after  that  decree  to  grant  them  faith  as  the  means  of  obtaining  salvation, 
but  when  God  elected  them  He  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  decree  de- 
creed to  grant  them  faith  and  perseverance  in  faith.  As  God  in  time  unites 
His  children  to  himself  by  giving  them.faith,  so  in  eternity  he  united  His 
children  to  himself  by  decreeing  to  give  them  faith." 

Again  he  says : 

"If,  therefore,  the  question  be  asked  whether  the  faith  that  is  found  In 
the  elect  in  time,  in  the  order  of  thought  preceeds  their  eternal  election  as  a 
cause,  condition,  etc.,  or  follows  after  it  as  a  result,  the  latter  must  be 
affirmed  and  the  former  denied." 

In  the  Minutes  of  the  Western  District  of  the  Missouri  Syn- 
od, 1877,  page  24,  it  is  said  ; 


SO  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

"Yes,  God  already  from  eternity  has  elected  a  certain  number  of  men  unto 
salvation;  He  has  decreed,  these  shall  and  must  be  saved ;  and  as  surely 
as  God  is  God,  so  surely  they  will  be  saved,  and  no  one  except  them." 

In  the  same  minutes,  pa^e  42,  we  read  : 

"The  decree  of  God  to  save  a  number  of  men  is  the  cause  of  their  salva- 
tion ;  but  for  this  no  man  would  be  saved  except  perhaps  the  infants." 

We  obtain  the  following  quotations  of  Missouri  doctrine, 
not  from  the  original,  because  we  do  not  have  them  on 
hand,  but  they  are  correct  and  can  be  verified  by  reference 
to  the  orignals: 

"How  can  that  be  called  election,  when  it  is  taught,  that  God  has  foreseen 
that  certain  persons  would  remain  iu  the  faith  unto  the  end,  and  then  after 
having  foreseen  it,  He  had  resolved  :  these  shall  be  saved.  If  election  is  to 
be  nothing  more,  than  that  God  abides  by  this  decree  that  all  they  who  be- 
lieve unto  the  end  shall  be  saved,  then  there  is  no  election."  Walth^rin 
Ch.  Prot.  p.  50. 

"Nothing,  nothing  at  all  did  God  foresee,  in  those  whom  He  decreed  to 
save."    Missouri  in  West.  Dist.  1877, 

"Gracious  election  is  namely  also  an  election  unto  vocation,  unto  right- 
eousness, and  unto  glory.  The  first  link  in  the  chain  of  our  salvation  is 
election,  the  second  ordination,  the  third  vocation,  the  fourth  justification, 
and  the  fifth  glorification,  which  is  whollv  up  in  heaven."  Missouri  in  West. 
Dis't.  1877,  p.  39. 

"The  Word  of  God  testifies,  that  grace  takes  away  natural  resistance,  yea 
even  also  overcomes  the  most  wilful  opposition  and  resistance  to  it;  again 
daily  experience  testifies  that  this  resistance  is  not  removed,  yea  even  yet 
turns  into  contempt  and  obduracy,  and  that  not  all  continue  steadfast  in 
the  faith  This  is  a  hidden  mistery,  known  only  to  God,  to  be  searched  out 
by  no  human  mind,  to  be  considered  with  awe  and  adored."  Missouri  in 
Lehre  und  Wehre,  vol.  19,  p.  173. 

''Many  a  father  is  kindlier  toward  one  child  than  toward  another,  because 
it  obeys  him  better  and  causes  him  more  joy  than  the  other;  he  also  gives 
food  and  drink  to  the  latter,  likewise  prepares  many  a  pleasure  for  it,  but 
unto  the  former  he  nevertheless  shows  this  and  that  kindness  more  than  to 
the  latter.  Even  so  God  acts  toward  us,  only  that  He  does  not  even  ask 
after  it,  whether  we  haye  obeyed  or  not,  but  does  just  as  He  will."  Missou- 
ri in  West-  Dis't.  1879,  p.  38. 

"And  what  is  now  in  the  doctrine  of  election  that  hidden  mystery?  At 
what  point  must  we  stand  still?  What  question  remains  unanswered  to 
us?  When  we  meditate  at  length  upon  the  revealed  truth,  that  God  accord- 
ing to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will,  of  pure  grace  and  mercy,  for  the  sake  of 
the  merits  of  Christ,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  elected  us,  just  us, 
then  arrises  the  thought,  the  question:  yea,  why  hath  God  then  elected  just 
us,  who  are  by  nature  not  a  hair'better  than  others?  To  elect,  to  choose 
(Auswa.ehlen,  Erwaehlen),  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word,  is  a  relative 
conception.  Election  means  separation.  God  chooses  some  out  of  a  mass 
and  separates  them  from  the  rest.  Accordingly  the  question  tends  thence: 
why  hath  God  chosen  we  before  others,  who  am  also  in  like  guilt  with  all 
other  children  of  men?  Why  hath  God  chosen  me,  not  others?  What  God 
however  has  done  a.nd  does  by  us  in  time,  is  certainly  but  the  reflex,  the  ex- 
ecution of  his  eternal  counsel  and  decree.  And  thus  the  question  obtains  the 
following  form:  'Why  did  God  eon  vrrt  and  draw  just  me  to  Him?  Why 
does  he  not  bring  all  meu  to  faith?    Tbej  are  by  nature  in  nothing  worse 


Tlte  Situation  in  North  Carolina.  31 

than  I.  And  I  am  by  nature  no  better  than  they.  Why  does  God  raise  up 
again  the  one,  who  has  fallen  from  faith,  and  not  the  other?  Why  did  lie 
grant  Peter  repentance  and  not  Judas?  It  certainly  nil  lies  solely  and 
alone  with  his  mercy.'  '  The  discretio  personarum'  (singling-out  of  persons) 
that  God  in  time  and  eternity,  in  conversion  as  well  as  election,  sterns  to 
make  a  distinction  among  sinners  who  all  lie  in  like  condemnation,  and 
alike  resist,  is  the  proper  mystery  of  election.  Why  God  acts  thus  by  one, 
and  thus  by  another,  this  we  can  not  and  shall  not  fathom.  The  rule,  by 
which  God  in  eternity  elected  and  separated  is  unknown  to  us.'  " — Missouri 
in  Lehre  and  Wehre,  Vol.  27,  p.  367  . 

Now  we  ask  a  careful  comparison  of  the  foregoing  Missouri 
statements  of  her  doctrine  of  election  with  the  following  quo- 
tations from  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort  (Calvinistic), 
and  that  the  essential  agreement  be  carefully  observed.  The 
quotations  are  made  from  Schaff's  Creeds  of  Christendom. 
Vol.  Ill,  p.  583  : 

''Art.  IX.  This  election  was  not  founded  upon  foreseen  faith,  and  the 
obedience  of  faith,  holiness,  or  any  other  good  quality  or  disposition  in 
man,  as  the  prerequisite,  cause,  or  condition  on  which  it  depended  ,  but  men 
are  chosen  to  faith  and  to  the  obedience  of  taith,  holiness,  etc.  Therefore  el  no- 
tion is  the  fountain  of  every  saving  good  ;  from  which  proceeds  faith,  holi- 
ness, and  the  other  gifts  of  salvation,  and  finally  eternal  life  itself,  as  its 
fruits  and  effects,  according  to  that  of  the  Apostle.  'He  hath  chosen  us 
[not  because  we  were  but]  that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  be- 
fore him  in  love.'     (Eph.l:4)." 

"Art.X.  The  good  pleasure  of  God  is  the  sole  cause  of  this  gracious  election  : 
which  doth  not  consist  herein  that  God,  foreseeing  all  possible  qualities  of 
human  actions,  elected  certain  of  these  as  a  condition  of  salvation,  but  that, 
he  was  pleased  out  of  the  common  mass  of  sinners  to  adopt  some  certain 
persons  as  a  peculiar  people  to  himself,  as  it  is  written,  'For  the  children 
being  not  yet  born,  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil,'  etc.,  'it  was  said 
[namely  to  Rebecca]  the  elder  shall  serve  the  yonder;  as  it  is  written,  'Jacob 
have  1  loved,  but  E.-au  have  I  hated'  (Mom.  IX,  11—18);  and,  'as  many  as 
were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed.'  (Acts  XIII,  48) ." 

But  ?nough  of  these  quotationsfrom  Missouri  Publications 
and  from  the  Canons  of  the  Synod  of  Dort.  Let  us  leave 
these  cold  and  dreary  speculations,  and  turn  to  the  more 
comforting  and  refreshing  words  of  the  Bible  and  the  Con- 
fessions of  the  Lutheran  Church. 

The  book  of  Concord  teaches  that  the  whole  plan  of  Salva- 
tion must  be  comprised  together  when  we  speak  of  election. 
It  says,  Formula  of  Concord,  Solid  Declaration,  Chapter  XI, 
[Jacob's  edition,  page  652]  paragraphs  13—24: 

"Therefore,  if  we  wish  to  think  or  speak  correctly  and  profitably  concern- 
ing eternal  election,  or  the  predestination  and  foreordiuation  of  the  children 
of  God  to  eternal  life,  we  should  accustom  ourselves  nob  to  speculate  con- 
cerning the  mere,  secret,  concealed,  inscrutable  foreknowledge  of  God,  but 


H^  The  Sit mi ,t ion  in  North  ( ''nrolinu. 

how  the  council,  purpose  and  ordination  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the 
true  book  of  life,  has  been  revealed  to  us  through  the  Word,  viz  :  that  the 
entire  doctrine  concerning  the  purpose,  council,  will  and  ordination  of  God 
pertaining  to  our  redemption,  call,  righteousness  and  salvation  should 
be  taken  together;  as  Paul  has  treated  and  explained  this  article  (Rom. 
8:29  sq. ;  Eph.  1;4  sq.),  as  also  Christ  in  the  parable  (Matt.  22- L  sqq.), 
namely,  that  in  his  purpose  and  council  decreed  : 

1.  That  the  human  race  should  be  truly  redeemed  and  reconciled  with 
God  through  Christ,  who,  by  his  faultless  [innocency]  obedience,  suffering 
and  death,  has  merited  for  us  righteousness  which  avails  betore  God,  and 
eternal  life. 

2.  That  such  merit  and  benefits  of  Christ  should  be  offered,  presented 
and  distributed  to  us  through  his  Word  and  sacraments. 

3.  That  he  would  be  efficacious  and  active  in  us  by  his  Holy  Ghost, 
through  the  Word,  when  it  is  preached,  heard  and  pondered,  to  convert 
hearts  to  true  repentance  aud  preserve  them  in  the  true  faith. 

4.  That  all  those  who.  in  true  repentance,  receive  Christ  by  a  true  faith 
he  would  justify  and  receive  into  grace,  adoption  and  inheritance  of  eternal 
life. 

5-  That  those  also  who  are  thus  justified  he  would  sanctify  in  love,  as 
St.  Paul  (Eph.  1:4)  says. 

6.  That,  in  their  great  weakness,  he  also  would  defend  them  against  the 
d«vil,  the  world  and  the  flesh,  and  would  rule  and  lead  them  in  his  ways, 
aud  when  they  stumble  would  raise  them  again  [piace  his  hand  beneath 
them],  and  under  1he  cross  and  in  temptation  would  comfort  and  preserve 
them  [for  life]. 

7.  That  the  good  work  which  he  has  begun  in  them  he  would  strengthen, 
increase  and  support  to  the  end,  if  they  observe  God's  Word,  pray  diligent- 
ly ,  abide  in  God's  goodness  [grace]  and  faithfully  use  the  gifts  received. 

8.  That  those  whom  he  has  elected  called  and  justified,  he  would  eter- 
nally save  and  glorify  in  eternal  life. 

And  that  in  his  council,  purpose  and  ordination  he  prepaid  salvation 
not  only  in  general,  but  in  grace  considered  and  chose  to  salvation  each 
and  every  person  of  the  elect,  who  shall  be  saved  through  Christ,  and  or- 
dained that  in  the  way  just  mentioned  he  would  by  his  grace,  gifts  and  effi- 
cacy bring  them  thereto  [make  them  participants  of  eternal  salvation],  and 
aid,  promote,  strengthen  and  preserve  them. 

All  this,  according  to  the  Scriptures,  is  comprised  in  the  doctrine  concern- 
ing the  eteriml  election  of  Go.d  to  adoption  and  eternal  salvation,  and 
should  be  comprised  with  it,  and  not  omitted,  when  we  speak  of  God's  pur- 
pose, predestination,  election  and  ordination  to  salvation.  And  when,  ac- 
cording to  the  S.  riptures,  thoughts  concerning  this  article  are  thus  formed, 
we  can,  by  God's  grace,  simply  [and  correctly]  adapt  ourselves  to  it  [and 
advantageously  treat  of  it]." 

Also  the  Formula  of  Coucord,  Epitome,  pp,  52(5,  527, 
Jacob's  Edition,  Paragraphs  11—13: 

''11.  That,  however,  '  many  are  called,  few  are  chosen,'  does  not  mean 
that  God  is  unwilling  that  all  should  be  saved,  hut  the  reason  is  that  they 
either  do  not  hear  God's  Word,  but  Wilfully  despise  it,  close  their  ears  mid 
harden  their  hearts,  and  in  this  manner  foreclosethe  oidinary  way  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,. so  that  he  cannot  effect  his  work  in  them,  or,  when  it  is  heard, 
they  consider  it  of  no  account,  and  do  not  heed  it.  For  (his  [that  they  per- 
ish] not  Go,d  or  his  election,  but  their  wickedness,  is  responsible  (2  Pet.  2;1 
sqq.;  Luke  11:49,  52;  Heb.  12:25  sq.)." 


The  Situation  in  North  Carolina.  HS 

"12.    Moreover,  a  Christian  should  apply  himself  [in  meditation]  to  the 

article  concerning  the  eternal  election  of  God,  so  far  as  it  has  been  revealed 
in  God's  Word,  which  presents  Christ  to  us  as  the  Book  of  Life,  which,  by 
the  preaching  of  the  holy  Gospel,  he  opens  and  spreads  out  to  us.  as  it  is 
written  (Horn  8:30):  '  Whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called.' 
In  him,  therefore,  we  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father,  who,  in 
his  eternal  divine  counsel,  determined  that  ho  would  save  no  one  except 
those  who  acknowledge  his  Son, Christy  and  truly  believe  on  him.  Other 
thoughts  are  to  be  entirely  banished  [from  the  minds  ot  the  godly],  as  they 
proceed  not  from  God,  but  from  the  suggestion  of  Satan,  whereby  lie  at- 
tempts to  weaken  or  to  entirely  remove  from  us  the  glorious  consolation 
which  we  have  in  this  salutary  doctrine,  viz.  that  we  know  [assuredly]  that 
out  of  pure  grace,  without  any  merit  of  our  own,  we  have  been  elected  in 
Christ  to  eternal  life,  and  that  no  one  can  pluck  us  out  of  his  hand  ;  as  he 
has  promised  this  gracious  election  not  only  with  mere  words,  but  has  also 
certified  it  with  an  oath,  and  sealed  it  with  the  holy  sacraments,  which  we 
can  [ought  to]  call  to  mind  in  our  most  severe  temptations,  and  from  them 
comfort  ourselves,  and  thereby  quench  the  fiery  darts  of  the  devil. 

"13.  Besides,  we  should  endeavor  with  the  greatest  pains  to  live  accord- 
ing to  the  will  of  God,  and,  as  St,  Peter  admonishes  (2  Ep.-l :  10),  'make 
our  calling  sure,' and  especially  adhere  to  [not  recede  a  finger's  breadth 
from]  the  revealed  Word,  that  can  and  will  not  fail  us." 

Again  the  Form.  Con.  Sol.  Dec.  pp.  660,  661,  paragraphs 
65—70 : 

"Therefore  this  eternal  election  of  God  is  to  be  considered  in  Christ,  and 
not  beyond  or  without  Christ.  For 'in  Christ,'  testifies  the  apostle  Paul 
(Eph.  1:4  sq).  'he  hath  chosen  us  before  the  foundation  ot  the  world  ;'  as  it 
is  written  :  *  He  hath  made  us  accepted  in  the  Beloved.'  But  this  election  is 
revealed  from  heaven  through  the  preached  Word  when  the  Father  says 
(Matt,  17:5):  'This  my  beloved  son  in  whom  I  am  well  pleased  ;  hear  ye 
him.'  And  Christ  says  (Matt.  1 1;28):  '  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that  labor  and 
a™  heavy  laden,  and  1  will  give  you  rest.'  And  concerning  the  Holy  Ghost 
Christ  says  (John  16:14):  '  He  shall  glorify  me;  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine, 
and  shall  show  it  unto  you.'  Therefore  the  entire  Holy  Trinity,  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  direct  all  men  to  Christ,  as  to  the  Book  of  Life,  in 
which  they  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of  the  Father.  For  it  has  betn 
decided  by  the  Father  from  eternity  that  whom  he  would  save  he  would 
save  through  Christ  (John  14:6):  '  No  man  cometh  unto  the  Father  but  by 
me.'  And  again  (John  10:9):  '  I  am  the  door;  by  me,  if  any  man  enter  in, 
he  shall  be  .saved.' 

But  Christ  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  has  published  to  us  the  will  of  the  Father,  and  thus  also  our  eternal 
election  to  eternal  life,  viz,  when  he  says  (Mark  1:15):  'Ilepent  ye,  and  be- 
lieve the  Gospel;  the  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand.'  He  also  says  (John 
6:40):  '  This  is  the  will  of  him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the 
Son  and  believeth  on  him  may  have  everlasting  life.'  And  again  (John 
3:16):  'God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that 
whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.' 

This  proclamation  the  Father  wishes  that  all  men  should  hear,  and  that 
they  should  come  to  Christ.  Those  who  come  to  Christ  does  not  rtpel  from 
himself,  as  it  is  written  (John  6:37):  '  Him  1hat  cometh  to  me  I  will  in  no 
wise  cast  out.' 

And  in  order  that  we  may  come  to  Christ,  the  Holy  Ghost  works,  through 
the hearing  of  the  Word,  true  faith,  as.  the^  apostles  testifies  when  he  says 


34  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina,. 

(Rom.  10:17).     ' Faith  cometh   by  hearing  arid    hearing  by   the  Word   of 
God,'  viz.  when  it  is  preached  in  its  purity  and  without  adulteration. 

Therefore  no  one  who  would  be  saved  should  trouble  or  harrass  himself 
with  thoughts  concerning  the  secret  counsel  of  (rod,  as  to  whether  he  also  is 
elected  and  ordained  to  eternal  life;  for  with  these  miserable  Satan  is  accus- 
tomed to  attack  and  annoy  godly  hearts.  But  they  should  hear  Christ 
[and  in  him  look  upon  the  Book  of  Life  in  which  is  written  the  etf  rnal  elec- 
tion], who  is  the  Book  of  Life  and  of  God's  eternal  election  of  all  God's  chil- 
dren to  eternal  life;  who  testifies  to  a,ll  men  without  distinction  that  it  is 
GocVs  will  that  all  men  who  labor  and  are  heavy  laden  with  sin  should  come 
to  him,  in  order  that  he  may  give  them  rest  and  save  them  (Matt.  11:28) ." 

Having  given  copious  quotations  irom  Oar  Confessions, 
we  shall  now  quote  irom  the  Theologians  of  the  Lutheran 
Church.    But  Missouri  would  hold   up  her  hands  in   horror 

and  say : 

We  are  not  bound  to  the  opinions  of  the  Theologians,  but  only  by  the 
Confessions.  It  is  true  that  iohe  Confessions  only  are  binding  upon  us.  But 
the  question  is,  what  do  the  Confessions  teach?  It  is  on  the  question  of 
interpretation  of  the  Confpssion^in  which  we  differ.  All  the  stuff  quoted  in 
foregoing  pages  from  Missouri's  writings,  is  but  her  interpretations  of  the 
Confessions.  These  quotations  are  to  set  forth  what  she  bsiieves  the  Con- 
fessions teach. 

What  the  great  theologians  of  the  Lutheau  Church  wiih  great  unanimity, 
for  over  three  hundred  years  have  said  is  the  correct  interpretation  of  our 
Confessions  on  this  subject,  comes  with  much  greater  force  to  us,  than  this 
new  interpretation  of  Missouri,  which  was  not  heard  of  in  the  Lutheran 
Church,  until  within  the  last  eighteen  or  twenty  years.  In  11ms  ignoring 
the  opinions  of  the  theologians.  Missouri  arrogates  to  herself  more  wisdom, 
and  penetration  and  erudition  as  to  what  the  Confessions  teach,  "than  even 
the  i'ramers  of  the  Confessions  themselves,  or  than  any  theologian  that  has 
lived  since — yes,  more  than  the  whole  Lutheran  Church  put  together  for 
three  hundred  years.  Such  arrogance  is  contemptible  to  us.  We  prefer 
the  interpretation  of  the  fathers  to  that  of  these  latter-day  Missouri  Colons, 
Luthers,  and  Reformers.  If  fathers  are  to  be  considered,  let  us  consider 
fathers.  All  these  theologians  teach '77;  view  of  faith.'  as  the  correct  inter- 
pretation of  the  Confessions.  The  first  reference  we  shall  give  is  to  Hutter'3 
Compend.  And  this  book  was  recommended  by  the  Tennesse  Synod,  as  a 
text  book  for  her  theological  students.  It  stands  in  the  list  of  books  rec- 
ommended for  private  students  in  Min.  of  1886,  p.  34. 

We  make  the  following  quotation  Irom  this  book,  which 
certainly  teaches  in  view  of  faith,  i.  e.,  the  merits  of  Christ 
apprehended  by  faith : 
"In  Hutter's  Compend,  Art;  13,  p.  120,  question  27  it  is  asked: 
'Do  you  therefore  state  that  God  has  elected  men  with  respect  to  foreseen 
faith?'  The  answer  follows:  'What  else  should  I  state,  when  the  holy 
Scriptures  with  such  exceeding  clearness  declare  this  to  be  the  truth?  The 
apostle  certainly  affirms,  Eph.  1,  5.  that  God  has  predestinated  us  unto  the 
adoption  of  children.  But  now  Christ  gives  the  power  to  become  sons  of 
God,  not  to  those  who  have  been  born  of  blood,  or  of  the  will  of  ihe  fleeh,  or 
of  the  will  of  raau,  but  of  God,  i.  e.,  ao>.ording  to  the  interpretation  of  John 

thopQ  wpg  be]|ovo  at\  ]}  je  i\mm,  John  T,  )  2>  B(moe  the  SavioiVJiohn  J  7, 
89,  toribing  tte .  „  ;  Neither  {iray  I  for  these  alone*  but  for  ttmi 


The  Situation  in  North  C&roliiiu.  -7.7 

also  which  shall  believe  on  me,  through  their  word.'  2  These.  2,  13.  'God 
hath  from  the.  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvatiou  through  sanctification  of 
the  Spirit,  and  belief  oi  the  truth.'    In  1  Tim.  1,  16,  the  apostle  speaks  of 

the  elect  as  those  '  which  should  hereafter  b.elieve  on  Christ  to  life  everlast- 
ing:.' James  2,  5,  '  Hath  not  God  chosen  the  poor  of  this  world  rich  in 
faith?'  Hence  the  Epitome  of  the  P.  of  C.  correctly  infers  that  God  in  His 
eternal  counsel  has  decreed  to  save  none  but  those  who  confess  His  Son 
Jesus  Christ,  an  .truly  believe  ind  Him.5     (F.  C.  Sol.  Dec.  Art.  11,  67). " 

Again  quoting- from  another  theologian  : 

"  In  the  forteenth  chapter  of  his  work  running  through  eleven  pages  llun- 
ni us  treats  of  election.  In  paragraph  .'506  he  gives  a  definition  of  election 
containing  explicitly  the  doctrine  in  view  of  faith.  This  doctrine  is  fully  ox- 
plained  and  guarded  ou  all  sides  from  error.  After  showing  what  God  did 
not  look  upon  in  election  it  is  then  shown  what  He  did  look  upon.  In  par- 
agraph 317  the  question  is  asked  : 

'What, then  did  God  look  upon  in  the  election  of  grace,  and  what  moved 
Him  that  He  preferred  one  to  an  other,  elected  some  and  others  not?  Here 
it  is  to  be  maintained,  (1)  In  the  election  of  grace,  God  beheld  only  and 
alone  Jesus  Cnrist.' 

This  proposition  is  then  established  bv  reference  to  Eph.  1,  4,  5,  6 ;  2 
Tim.  1,9:2  Cor.  5.  19 ;  St.  John  1,  17  :  Acts  4,  12.  In  paragraph  818,  2) 
it  says- 

"God  in  the  election  of  grace  looked  upon  Christ,  not  in  so  far  as  life  suf- 
fered for  all  men  and  atoned  for  their  sins.  (For  in  this  case  all  men  are 
alike  and  there  is  no  difference,  no  election  can  occur  among  them,  foras- 
much as  Christ  has  borne  all  sins  as  hereafter  is  to  be  shown.)  But  also 
819  3)  God  looked  upon  Jesus  Christ  in  election  of  grace  as  He  is  accepted 
on  the  part  of  man.  For  to  whom  -God  shows  a  peculiar  grace  in  which  He 
permits  His  perfect  love  to  be  shown  and  certified,  as  He  is  of  course  reccon- 
ciled  to  such  person;  the  same  has  certainly  received  and  appropriated  the 
Lord  Jesus  (who  reconciled  him  and  brought  him  1o  grace)  through  whom 
he  has  not  only  been  reconciled  in  so  far  as  merit  is  aquired,  but  also  in 
fact.  The  election  of  grace  is  such  a  work  of  God  in  which  He  permits  His 
perfect  love  to  be  seen  towards  those  whom  He  has  elected  and  testifies  to 
them,  that  thej  are  truly  reconciled  to  Him.  It  follows  therefore,  that  they 
whom  God  has  elected  have  accepted  and  appropriated  the  Lord  Jesus,  the 
throne  of  grace," 

In  paragraph  820  Hunnius  proves  that  Jesus  is  accepted  only  by  faith. 
Then  paragraph  321  says: 

"Accordingly  4)  In  election  of  grace  God  has  seen  that  in  some  men  the 
Lord  Christ  abides  with  His  merit  and  acquired  righteousness,  and  because 
these  are  thereby  perfectly  reconciled  to  Him  He  has  elected  them  to  eternal 
life.  On  the  other  hand  He  has  seen  that  in  some  men  there  is  no  faith, 
and  that  Christ  is  banished  from  them  by  unbelief,  and  that  not  being  par- 
takers of  His  righteousness  and  merits,  they  remain  in  their  sin  and  the 
wrath  of  (rod  rests  upon  them;  therefore  He  has  found  them  outside  of 
Christ  and  has  not  elected  them.  322.  And  this  makes  the  difference  be- 
twixt them  whom  God  has  elected  and  whom  He  has  not  elected,  because 
some  are  in  Christ,  some  are  outside  of  Him,  some  believe,  some  do  not  be- 
lieve; iust  as  this  distinguishes  those  who  are  saved  and  those  who  are 
damned,  John  3,  18.  36." 

"323.  5)  In  election  of  grace  God  looked  upon  the  faith  of  mew,  that  is, 
He  elected  believers  and  did  riot  elect  unbelievers.  Not  as  though  faith  in 
itself  gives  a  man  suoh  worthiness  as  moves  God  to  this  work  of  grace  and 

for  tl»e  mk9  of  whioh  He  o\mU  a  -person,  but  in  so  fav  m  faith  is  tfeo  means 


86  The  Situation  in  NoHh  Carolina. 

through  the  Lord  Christ  is  united  with  men  and  through  which  His  inno- 
cence, righteousness  and  merit  are  given  and  applied.  (To  which  the  view 
is  really  directed  in  election  of  grace.)  It  is  not  different  than  as  God  justi- 
fies and  saves  us  through  faith,  where  He  does  not  justify  and  save  any  one 
for  the  sake  of  faith  and  its  worthiness,  but  through  faith  in  so  far  as  it  ap- 
propriates the  merit  and  righteousness  of  the  Lord  Christ  for  whose  sake  it 
justifies  and  saves." 

"324  6)  In  the  election  of  grace  God  looked  upon  the  Lord  Christ  not 
only  as  He  dwells  in  the  hearts  of  men  by  faith,  but  also  as  faith  remains 
and  perseveres  to  their  end  and  to  the  time  of  their  departure.  For  as  sal- 
vation is  promised  to  all  those  who  steadfastly  persevere  in  their  faith  to 
the  end,  also  has  God  ordained  those  to  eternal  life,  of  whom  He  foresaw 
that  they  would  steadfastly  persevere  until  the  end,  according  to  the  words 
of  Christ,  Matt.  10,  22,  he  that  endureth  to  the  end  shall  be  saved." 

We  quote  from  a  translation  by  Edward  Pfeiffer,  of  "Anti- 
Calvinism,"  by  Dr.  August  Pfeiffer.    Page  174  he  says : 

"That  God  elected  to  eternal  life  the  believers  and  those  who  are  saved, 
not  by  his  absolute  good  pleasure  without,  regard  to  anything,  but  in  con- 
sideration of  faith  and  the  merits  of  Christ,  we  prove,  in  the  first  place,  by 
the  words  of  St.  Paul  in  Eph.  1:4—6:  'According  as  he  hath  chosen  us  in 
him'  (Christ)  'before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  that  we  should  be  holv 
ancl  without  blame  before  him  in  love,  having  predestinated  us  unto 
the  adoption  of  children  by  Jesus  Christ  to  himself,  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  his  will,  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he  hath 
made  us  accepted  in  the  beloved.'  From  this  we  draw  the  following  infer- 
ence: The  election  that  was  made  in  Christ  and  in  the  beloved  took  place 
not  by  the  mere  will  and  good  pleasure  of  God  absolutely,  but.  in  considera- 
tion of  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  This  proposition  is  doubtless  clear  to  all. 
There  is  certainly  no  need  of  extended  explanation  to  show  that  the  express- 
ion in  Christ  used  in  the  passage  signifies  as  much  as  through,  or  on  ac- 
count of,  his  merit,  which  he  acquired  as  the  propitiation  for  all  men ; 
wherefore  also  St.  Paul,  inverse  7,  says  of  Christ:  'In  whom  we  have 
redemption  through  his  blood,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  according  to  the 
riches  of  his  grace.'  It  is  evident,  furthermore,  that  this  merit  of  Christ,  in 
order  to  benefit  a  person,  and  be  regarded  in  his  eternal  election,  must  be 
apprehended  by  faith,  since  he  that  is  without  faith  is  not  in  Christ,  but 
outside  of  him.  The  same  truth  is  clearly  taught  bv  the  words  of  St.  Paul, 
that  God  predestinated  us,  unto  the  adoption  of  children  to  himself.  For 
God's  adoption  of  children  rests, on  true  faith,  as  we  read  in  John  1:12,  that 
'As  many  as  received  Him,  to  them  gave  He  power  to  become  the  sons  of 
God,  even  to  them  that  believe  on  His  name.'  The  apostle  continues  to 
show  this  in  the  subsequent  verses  of  the  passage,Eph.  1, by  pointing  outthe 
fact  that  everything  pertaining  and  leading  to  our  salvation  we  enjoy  sole- 
Jy  in  Christ  and  by  virtue  of  his  saving  merit.  The  same  truth  is  expressed 
also  in  the  words,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  His  will.  For  this  good 
pleasure  of  God's  will  includes  faith,  since,  as  Christ  himself  tells  us  in  John 
6:40:  '  This  is  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  that  every  one  which  seeth  the 
Son  and  believeth  on  him  may  have  everlasting  life.'  We  will  not  stop  to 
show  that  from  the  words  in  verse  3  of  the  first  chapter  to  the  Ephesians, 
God,  'hath  blessed  us  with  all  spiritual  blessings  in  heavenly  places  in 
Christ,'  we  may  infer  that  God  from  eternity  elected  us  in  him  and  iu  consid- 
eration of  him  in  whom  he  hath  blessed  us  in  time.  For  God  has  elected  us 
in  consideration  of  that  through  which  he  also  actually  saves  us.  There  is 
no  need,  therefore, of  further  proof  to  show  that  the  election  which  was  made 


The  Situation  in  North  Carolina.  87 

in  Christ  took  place  not  by   mere  good  pleasure,   but  in   consideration   of 
faith  in  Christ." 

''Section  12.  Furthermore,  our  adversaries  allege  in  regard  to  this  pas- 
sage that  the  expression  'in  Christ'  may  be  explained  thus:  God  elected  us 
that  we  might  be  incorporated  into  Christ,  become  his  members,  and  in  him 
and  through  his  merit  have  eternal  life.  Accordingly  it  can  not  be  said  that 
God  in  his  election  regarded  the  merit  of  Christ;  but  by  his  mere  good  pleas- 
ure he  elected  his  children  to  eternal  life,  which  they  consequenter  et  finalitvr 
attained  in  Christ  and  his  merit.  But  in  order  to  have  this  sense,  the  words 
en  Christo  would  have  to  to  be  changed  to  eis  Christon,  into  Christ.  This 
could  then  be  no  interpreted  that  the  elect  are  to  be  one  body  in  Christ  and 
in  him  to  have  life  and  every  blessing.  In  the  text,  however,  we  find  en 
Christo,  and  St.  Paul  makes  it  plainer  still  by  using  the  preposition  dia,  by, 
through,  in  the  fifth  verse;  so  that  the  passage  can  he  interpreted  to  mean 
nothing  else,  than  God  elected  us  in  consideration  of  the  merit  of  Christ  and 
its  appropriation  by  true  faith." 

With  reference  to  this  book  from  which  this  last  is  taken, 
we  would  remark  that  it  was  highly  endorsed  by  a  number  of 
the  ministers  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  ;  and  extensively  sold 
by  a  number  of  them.  Rev.  M.  L.  Little  was  the  general 
agent  for  this  work;  and  Dr.  P.C.  Henkelsold  it  in  hiscongre- 
gations.  He  sold  a  copy  to  Mr.  Peter  Little  ol  Oxford  Ford. 
He  strongly  endorsed  the  views  herein  expressed.  He  said  to 
Mr.  Little  that  a  copy  of  the  book,  Anti-Calvinism,  should  be 
in  every  home.  And  he  certainly  would  not  have  sold  a  book 
to  his  people  containing  such  statements  as  above  quoted,  if 
he  had  held  the  doctrine  which  Missouri  teaches,  as  some 
people  pretend  to  believe,  and  endeavor  to  make  others 
believe.  He  may  have  agreed  with  Missouri  when  he  belong- 
ed to  the  English  Conference  of  the  Missouri  Synod  while  he 
was  in  the  West,  for  Missouri,  itself,  then  held  in  view  of  faith. 
This  was  unanswerably  shown  in  several  articles  in  the  Luth- 
eran Standard,  in  the  earlier  part  of  this  year,  by  Rev.  E.  L. 
S.  Tressel.  We  give  a  quotation  from  the  articles  refered  to, 
of  Lutheran  Standard,  March  17,  1894,  Rev.  Tressel  says: 

"In  the  beginning  of  1855  the  first  number  of  Lehre  and  Wehre,  a  theo- 
logical monthlv,  made  its  appearance  in  the  Missouri  Synod  with  Dr.  Wal- 
ther  as  editor.  In  the  first  Volume,  page  234,  Dr. Sihier,  one  of  the  founders 
of  the  Missouri  Synod  presented  a  series  of  theses  on  predestination,  and  as 
he  tells  us  in  1881,  pag»  58  of  the  same  monthly,  in  agreement  with  his  col 
legue,  Prof.  Craemer.  We  have  therfore  the  testimony  of  Dr.  \Vaither,  the 
editor,  and  the  two  professors  named,  that  Missouri  taught  what  the  theses 
present.       *        *       *       *       " 

Dr.  Sihlers  first  thesis  presents  a  deffinition  of  election. 
Here  it  is : 


38  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

•'  Election  is  an  act  of  God  in  which  He,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world 
that  is,  from  eternity,  according-  to  the  purpose  of  his  will  has  resolved  for 
Chrises  sake  aud  to  the  praise  of  His  glorious  grace,  to  eternally  save  all 
those,  whose  preserving  faith  in  Christ,  He  has  foreseen.  Eph.  1:4—6; 
2  Tim.  1:9." 

Also  Dietrich's  Catechism  which  they  (Missouri)  have  used 
for  thirty  years  or  more,  and  whose  teaching  on  election, 
they  for  a  long  time  endorsed,  but  will  not  do  so  now,  al- 
though they  continue  to  use  it  in  their  school  and  Catecheti- 
cal Classes  in  this  section,  teaches  this  same  "in  view  of 
faith"  doctrine.  On  page  132,  question  321,  of  that  Cate- 
chism we  find  this  question  and  answer: 

"What  thrn  is  the  divine  election  of  grace?  It  is  that  act  of  God  by 
which  He,  alone  out  of  His  grace  and  mercy  in  Christ,  has  resolved  to  save 
all  those  who  steadfastly  believe  in  Christ,  to  the  praise  of  His  glorious 
grace." 

In  reference  to  this  question  and  answer  in  Dietrich's  Cate- 
chism, the  question  was  repeatedly  and  emphatically  put  to 
the  Missouri  pastors  at  the  Free  Conference  at  Conover  in 
January  1894,  whether  they  would  accept  that  deffinition 
as  their  position,  and  they  all  with  great  unanimity,  persist- 
ently refused  to  answer.  And  Prof.  Dau  at  Sardis  Church, 
during  the  last  meeting  of  the  North  Carolina  Conference, 
April  1894,  said  to  the  writer,  in  presence  of  others,  when 
the  same  question  was  put  to  him;  "I  am  not  bound  to 
Dietrich."  This  is  certainly  very  inconsistent,  denying  an 
old  friend  and  repudiating  the  teaching  of  the  Catechism 
which  they  use  themselves.  Dr.  P.  C.  Henkle  may  have 
agreed  with  them  while  in  the  West,  but  if  he  did  they  then 
taught  ''in  view  of  faith"  and  not  what  they  teach  now. 

Dr.  Henkle  returned  to  North  Carolina,  sometime  in  the 
earlier  part  of  1877,  and  in  November  of  that  year  reentered 
the  Tennessee  Synod.  Up  to  that  time  the  question  ofelec- 
tion  had  not  disturbed  the  Missouri  Synod,  nor  the  Synodi- 
eal  Conference. 

While  in  the  State  of  Missouri  Dr.  Henkle  was  in  a  Free 
English  Conference,  held  in  the  town  of  Gravelton,  Wayne 
County,  Missouri,  August  17—20,  1872.  Dr.  YValtherof  the 
Missouri  Synod  was  also  in  that  Conference,  and;  sq  far  as( 

the  minutes  appear  tbey  agreed, 


The  Situation  in  horth  Carolina.  -3') 

But  they  did  not  discuss  the  Subject  of  Election,  (see  Min- 
utes of  that  Conference).  And  moreover.  Dr.  F.  A.  Schmidt, 
the  avowed  enemy,  now,  of  Missouri  was  also  in  that  Confer- 
ence. And  if  that  meeting  proved  that  Dr.  Henkel  agreed 
with  Walther,  it  proves  also  that  he  agreed  with  Schmidt. 
The  fact  is,  it  does  not  prove  either  so  far  as  election  is  con- 
cerned ;  for  that  subject  was  not  then  agitated.  And  the  Mis- 
souri error  has  crept  in  since  as  the  following  extract  from  a 
letter  of  Dr.  P.  C.  Henkle,  written  from  Conover,  North  Car- 
olina,, July  8,  1881,  to  Dr.  F.  A,  Schmidt,  urging. him.  to 
come  to  Conover  to  take  charge  of  the  school  there,  will  show  : 

"That  burning  question  of  Election  is  not  as  yet  troubling  us  here,  and  if 
you  would  have  occasion  to  fight  ifc  in  the  future,  you  can  do  so  from  this 
point  as  well  as  from  any  other.  I  am  sorry  that  there  is  any  occasion  for 
the  Church  to  be  troubled  with  that  subject  now.  It  has  gotten  into  l  he 
Eug.  Con.  of  Missouri  and  I  am  now  corresponding  with  Rev.  L.  M.  Wag- 
ner, who  is  in  my  old  Charge.  He  certainly  has  fallen  into  error  on  that 
subject,  but  whether  I  shall  be  able  to  convince  him  or  not  remains  to  be 
tested." 

[If  any  one  doubts  the  existence  of  this  letter,  let  him  call 
on  the  writer  of  this  paper,  he  has  it.]  These  are  the  words 
of  Dr.  Henkle  in  his  own  hand.  They  show  very  conclusively 
to  an  unprejudiced  mind  where  he  stood  on  this  election 
question.  He  wanted  and  urged  Dr.  Schmidt  to  come  and 
head  the  school  at  Conover.  A  man  who  had  gone  from 
Missouri  on  account  of  their  error,  as  he  believed,  on  this 
very  election  question;  and  who  was  then  publishing  a  paper, 
or  was  at  least  its  editor,  w<Altes  und  Neues,"  whose  sole  pur- 
pose was  to  fight  this  Missouri— Calvinism.  Dr.  Henkle 
urges  this  man,  to  come  to  Conover  and  teach  ;  and  says, 
he  can  fight  it  (Missouri's  error)  from  that  point  just  as  well 
as  from  any  other.  And  yet  we  are  told  by  people  who  know 
better,  or  ought  to  know  better,  at  least,  that  Dr.  Henkle 
held  the  same  views  as  Missouri  does  to-day  ! 

But  in  addition  to  the  theologians,  Hutter,  Hunuius  and 
Pheiffer,  already  quoted  as  teaching  L'in  view  of  faith"  we 
simply  refer  to  yet  others  without  quoting  them;  for  the 
quotations  qu.  this  subject  alone  would  fill  Volumes,    In. 

Schmidt's  Dogmatics,  a-  book  in  the  list  for  theological  itu« 


40  The  Situation  in  ISorth  Carolina. 

dents,  reccommended  by  the  Tennessee  Synod,  with  all  the 
theologians  quoted  therein  we  find  nothing  else  than  uin 
view  of  faith/'  We  name  Hollazius,  Ch^traeus,  Qnenstedt, 
Gerhard,  Baier,  Masius,  Dietrich,  Chemnitz,  Andrea.  Selnecker, 
who  with  a  host  of  others, interpreted  our  confessions  in  this 
same  wav. 

Rev.  David  Henkel,  the  father  of  Dr.  P.  C.  Henkel,  the 
founder  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  in  an  article  on  Justification 
appended  to  his  "Answer  to  Joseph  Moore,  the  Methodist," 
on  page  170  says : . 

"It  in  erroneous  to  teach,  that  for  whomsoever  Christ  died,  must  also 
infallibly  be  saved ;  yea  that  such  are  already  saved ,  arid  that  faith  is  only 
necessary  for  such  to  become  sensible  of  their  interest  in  him.  Hence  such 
as  believe  an  unconditional  election,  believe  that  Christ  died  for  none  but 
for  such  as  will  be  saved.  Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God. 
Heb.  11:6.  If  we  can  not  please  God  without  faith,  it  is  evident  that  by 
faith  we  may  please  him :  hence  faith  is  not  merely  necessary  to  find  out 
that  we  please  him,  but  by  it  we  please  him.  When  God  has  chosen  a  sinner 
unto  salvation,  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  he  is  chosen  without  a  foreseen 
tenth  in  him.  It  is  out  of  the  question  for  God  to  elect  a  sinner  unto  Salva- 
tion, unless  he  please  him;  and  by  faith  only  can  he  plea.se  him;  hence  with- 
out faith  he  can  not  be  chosen.  If  the  sinner  bo  elected  froni  eternity,  he 
must  also  have  pleased  God  from  eternity:  by  faith  only  can  he  please  him  ; 
hence  God  from  eternity  must  foresee  this  faith;  otherwise  there  could  be 
no  election.  *****  ^he  sacrec]  Scriptures  indeed  teach 
an  election,  but  not  such  as  is  without  condition.  When  two  things  are 
alike,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  be  chosen :  for  where  there  is  no  dif- 
ference, there  can  be  no  preference.  It  is  not  disputed,  but  one,  or  the  other 
might  be  accepted  through  an  indifferent  chance;  but  not  by  a  rational 
choice:  because  there  can  be  no  choice  without  a  difference  in  the  objects. 
All  men  are  sinners  alike  by  nature—  there  is  no  difference.  Rom.  3:22.  23. 
Now  as  there  is  no  difference  between  sinners,  what  may  be  the  reason, 
that  God  chooses  one  in  preference  to  another?  There  certainly  must  be 
some  condition;  for  the  very  idea  of  an  election  implies  that  the  thing,  or 
person  chosen,  must  either  be  more  valuable  in  itself,  or  connected  with 
an  object  which  makes  it  so,  than  that  which  is  not  chosen.  It  has  al- 
ready been  shown  that  all  men  are  siuuers  alike  by  nature;  hence  God 
can  not  choose  one  in  preference  to  another,  because  of  any  superior  moral 
excellence.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  infinitely 
valued  by  all  the  holy  angels,  the  peculiar  delight  of  his  Father,  hence 
the  sinner  who  by  faith  is  connected  with  him,  stands  in  so  surperlative 
a  relation,  that  there  is  superabundant  reason  why  the  divine  wisdom 
chooses  him  as  an  hdr  of  salvation.  St.  Paul  represents  believers,  as 
being  choson  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world.  Eph.  1:3,  4. 
No  man  can  be  in  Christ  so  as  to  be  saved,  unless  he  have  faith;  hence  to  be 
chosen  in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world  implies  a.  foreseen  faith 
from  eternity,  which  is  a  sufficient  ground  of  election.  Now  if  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  unconditional  election  were  true,  the  sinner  could  not  be  chosen 
in  Christ  before  the  foundation  of  the  world;  because  this  doctrine  supposes 
the  sinner  chosen  unto  faith,  i.  e.,  chosen  not  because  of  any  forseen 
faith,  but  chosen  in  order  to  be  made  a  believer.'' 


The  Sit  licit  ion  in  Sort  h  Carolina.  41 

Here  Rev.  David  Henkel,  calls,  "chosen  unto  faith,"," chos- 
en not  because  ol  any  foreseen  laith,  but  chosen  in  order  to 
be  made  a  believer,"  Calvinism.  And  we  believe  he  gave  it 
the  right  name :  for  that  is  the  way  the  Calvinists  explain 
their  doctrine  of  election— The  watchword  of  Calvinism  is, 
"  unto  faith ;"  of  Lutheranism,  "in  view  of  faith."  This  has 
been  the  teaching  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  in  all  her  history. 
Rev.  J.  M.  Smith  said  in  a  pastoral  Conference,  held  in  Con- 
cordia College  Chapel,  July  8,  1890,  that  "in  view  of  faith" 
was  what  Dr,  P.  C.  Henkel  had  taught  him,  and  that  it  was 
the  Lutheran  doctrine;  and  as  further  proof  that  that  was 
the  Lutheran  position,  read  the  position  taken  by  the  Fac- 
ulty in  the  Theological  Seminary  in  Philadelphia,  where  his 
son,  P.  B.  Smith,  was  then  in  school.  He  also  then  wrote  to 
Dr.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  and  received  a  thirteen  page  letter,  and 
showed  it  to  the  writer  and  others  as  a  defence  of  "in  view  of 
faith,"  and  against  "unto  faith."  Furthermore,  Rev.  J.  M. 
Smith  during  the  earlier  part  of  the  year,  1890,  while  the 
subject  of  election  was  discussed  in  the  pastoral  association 
at  Conover,  borrowed  the  minutes  of  the  Concordia  English 
District  of  the  Ohio  Synod,  1882,  of  Mr.  Geo.  A.  Brady  ot 
Conover.  When  the  minutes  were  loaned  no  marginal 
writings  were  in  them,  when  returned  by  Rev.  J.  M.  Smith, 
the  following  paragraph,  on  page  38,  was  marked  in  Rev. 
Smith's  hand,  "Luth."    The  paragraph  reads: 

"The  Lutheran  Church  teaches  that  God  comes  in  His  Word  (sacraments 
are  also  Word)  to  convert  the  world;  aud  there  is  no  distinction  made  in 
the  lost  world  by  any  decree.  God  comes  in  the  Law  aud  Gospel  to  convert 
all.  Some  set  themselves  obstinately  against  God  in  his  means  and  this  is 
why  they  are  not  converced.  God  has  redeemed  all,  preaches  the  word  to 
all  and  selects  those  who  believe.  '  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptised  shall 
be  saved.'  And  btcause  all  things  are  before  God,  He  does  not  need  to  wait 
till  the  end  of  time  to  see  who  will  be  saved  ;  hence  we  say  that  the  ordina- 
tion to  Salvation  took  place  in  view  of  faith." 

The  paragraph  following  this,  is  marked  in  Rev,  Smith's 
hand  "Mo."  and  reads: 

"Missouri  says,  God  redeemed  all  and  selects  some;  the  Lutheran  Church 
teaches,  God  redeemed  all  and  selects  those  that  believe.  Missouri  says  God 
selects  some  yet  in  sin  and  ordains  them  to  conversion,  faith  and  salvation; 
the  Lutheran  Church  teaches  that  God  selects  only  believers.  Missouri  puts 
the  act  of  election  before  preaching;  the  Lutheran  Church  puts  the  selection 
after  the  result  of  the  preached  word.    Thus  all  can  see  that  our  battle  with 


42  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina,, 

Missouri  is  not  a  logomachy,  a  battle  about  words  or  a  personal  affair,  but 
a  contest  for  God's  precious  Word." 

Here  we  see  that  more  than  four  years  ago  Rev.  J.  M. 
Smith,  understood  Missouri's  position,  and  drew  the  con- 
trast between  the  teaching  of  the  Lutheran  Church  and  the 
teaching  of  Missouri,  by  marking  these  paragraphs  as  he  did. 

These  minutes  are  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Brady  and  can 
be  seen  on  application  to  him,  and  the  above  statement 
about  the  marginal  writing  verified.  These  many  references 
to  Rev.  J.  M.  Smith's  position  are  made  lor  the  reason  that 
he  now  says  that  he  has  not  changed  his  views  and  that 
these  Missouriaus  hold  just  what  he  has  always  believed. 

In  the  light  of  all  the  facts  above  given  about  Missouri's 
doctrine,  and  the  doctrine  as  taught  by  the  Lutheran  Church 
ever  since  the  Form.  Con.,  and  especially  by  the  writers  and 
pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  several  of  us,  pastors  in 
the  Tennessee  Synod,  at  the  Free  Conference  at  Conover, 
1894,  signed  and  read  the  following  paper.  This  paper  was 
also  signed  by  a  number  of  pastors  in  connection  with  the 
Concordia  District  of  the  Ohio  Synod.  The  following  is  an 
exact  copy  of  the  paper  : 

"  We,  the  undersigned,  express  it  as  our  conviction  that  the  doctrine  ex 
pressed  by  the  words,  '  Intuitu  Fidei,' i.  e,  in  view  of  the  merits  of  Christ 
apprehended  by  faith,  is  in  full  accord  with  the  Confessions  of  the  Lutheran 
Church  and  the  Scriptures;  and  that  those  who  reject  the  doctrine  of  '  Intu- 
itu Fidei,'  reject  therewith  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  our  Confessions: 
H.  K.  G.  Dcermann,  W.  P.  ('line,  R.  A.  Yoder,  E.  L.  S.  Tressel.  R.  L.  Fritz, 
W  E.  Tressel,  J.  P.  Miller.  Benj.  L.  Westenberger,  J.  H.  Kexrode,  C.  D. 
Besch,  G.  L.  Hunt,  J.  C.  Moser." 

After  the  meeting  of  the  Conference  at  the  conclusion   of 

which    the  above  quoted    paper   was  read,   it   was   falsely 

and  maliciously  reported  to   our   people,   that  those  of   us, 

pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  who  had   signed   the  above 

paper,  had,  by  signing  it,  left  the  Tennessee  Synod  and  gone 

to  the  Ohio  Synod.     In  this  paper  we  simply  made  a.  public 

Confession  of  our  adherence  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Bible  and 

Confessions  of  the  Lutheran  Church,  as  they  have  been  held 

in  all  its  history.     What  we  say  in   this  paper,   "in   view   of 

the  merits  of  Christ  apprehended  by  faith,"  has  been  said  lor 

three  hundred  years,  or  more,  by  the  great  theologians  of 


The  Situation  in  North  Carolina,  48 

our  church.  The  writers  and  founders  of  the  Tennessee  Syn- 
od have  said  the  same.  This  position  is  no  new  departure, 
and  our  signing  and  reading  this  paper  was  but  an  emphatic 
reiteration  of  old  and  long  tried  principles.  And  the  neces- 
sity of  our  signing  and  publicly  reading  this  paper  grew  out 
of  the  fact,  that  at  that  Free  Conference  a  large  number  of 
people  under  our  pastoral  care  were  present  and  that  Mis- 
souri's real  position  was  as  much  concealed  as  possible,  by 
Missouri  pastors,  not  even  admitting  that  the  definition  of 
election  in  their  own  Catechism  was  their  definition,  and  not 
admitting  that  it  was  not.  Men  who  are  candid  and  truth- 
ful do  not  evade  plain  questions.  If  i;the  Conover  Con- 
ference blasted  the  last  hope  of  long  looked  and  pray- 
ed for  peace  and  unity  with  our  opponents/'  [Prof. 
Dau  in  Luth.  Witness,  July  7,  1894],  let  him  ask  him- 
self whether  such  evasion  of  his  position,  did  not  help 
to  bring  about  that  result.  Why  did  he  not  say  yes, 
or  no,  to  that  question?  Did  not  have  time?  Why  other 
speakers  proposed  to  give  him  their  time  in  which  to 
answer.  By  such  methods  of  pettifogging  and  dust-raising 
our  people  were  somewhat  confused  ■  and  it  was  necessary, 
in  our  judgment,  to  give  a  clear,  definite,  and  .explicit  state- 
ment of  our  position.  Why  did  those  Missourians  become  so 
offended  when  this  paper,  setting  forth  an  old  Lutheran  po- 
sition, was  read,  if  they  did  not  have  a  point  to  make  on  our 
people  by  concealing  their  real  doctrine?  That  there  was 
foolish  madness  was  manifested  to  the  writer  immediately 
after  he  had  read  this  paper,  by  being  attacked  by  very 
harsh  and  severe  language,  and  by  personal  assault. 

We  signed  and  read  this  paper  because  we  claim  that  it 
was  not  only  our  right  and  privilege,  but  also  our  duty  to 
do  so  under  the  circumstances.  Have  pastors  of  the  Luth- 
eran Church  any  right  in  free  America  to  give  expression  to 
their  convictions  on  religious  doctriues  before  their  own  peo- 
ple? Have  we  reached  such  a  state  of  affairs  in  our  church 
that  pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  can  not  in  a  formal 
way  set  forth  their  views— the  same  that  their  Synod   has 


44  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina. 

always  held— before  people  also  of  the  Tennessee  Synod, 
without  being  abused  for  it?  It  is  a  Jesuitical  spirit  that 
would  suppress  free  speech,  and  calumniate  those  who  give 
expression  to  their  views. 

By  signing  this  paper  with  several  pastors  of  the  Ohio 
Synod,  we  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  who  signed  it,  are  charged 
with  having  gone  to  Ohio  Synod.  Have  Revs.  J.  M.  Smith 
and  C.  H.  Bernheim  gone  to  the  Missouri  Synod  ?  Let  us 
see.  They  have  united  with  the  Missouri  pastors  in  a  Con- 
ference, the  Augustana  Conference;  they  fellowship  Missouri 
pastors  and  have  them  preach  in  their  pulpits  to  their  peo- 
ple; they  are  members  of  a  Board  of  Trustees  of  a  College, 
owned  and  controlled,  as  is  claimed,  by  the  Missouri  Synod 
together  with  six  Missourians  on  the  same  Board ;  they  re- 
fuse to  commune  with  pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod,  be- 
cause, as  they  said  in  a  meeting  of  a  Ministerium  at  the  meet- 
ing of  Synod  in  Hickory,  of  an  alliance  they  had  formed  with 
Missouri;  they,  with  two  other  pastors  ol  the  Tennessee Syn- 
on,  refused  to  discuss  questions  of  doctrine  with  us,  and  pro- 
tested against  this  paper,  which  sets  forth  the  doctrine  of 
the  Tennessee  Synod.  And  yet  thay  claim  to  be  loyal  sons 
of  the  Old  Tennessee  Synod,  and  that  they  are  working  for 
her  interests !  Why  does  Rev.  J.  M.  Smith  not  publish  the 
proceedings  of  the  Augustana  Conference  of  which  he  is  a 
member,  in  our  Church  Paper,  that  our  people  may  see  what 
he  is  doing?  If  he  is  loyal  to  the  Tennessee  Synod,  and 
working  for  her  interests,  why  does  he  sell  the  Lutheran  Wit- 
ness, a  Missouri  paper,  to  his  people  and  displace  Our  Church 
Paper?  But  we  who  signed  a  paper  with  some  pastors  of 
the  Ohio  Synod,  which  is  only  an  agreement  of  certain  men 
on  this  point,  have  gone  to  Ohio !  "Oh!  consistency,  thou 
art  a  jewel." 

Whenever  these  pastors  of  the  Tennessee  Synod  who  signed 
this  paper  unite  with  the  Ohio,  or  ant>  other  Synod,  it  will  be 
in  the  full  light  of  doctrinal  agreement.  It  will  be  after  the  doc- 
trines of  the  church  shall  have  been  openly,  frankly  and  can. 
(lifHy  discussed  ;  and  our  people  informed  of  the  matter,  and 


The  Situation  in  ISiovth  Carolina.  4o 

their  voice  heard.  It  will  not  be  done  in  the  clandestine, 
sneaking  and  evasive  methods  of  Missouri  and  those  who  are 
forming  alliances  with  her  here  in  our  midst  and  thereby  con- 
fusing their  own  people  as  to  what  Synodical  connection 
they  really  have. 

In  their  destitution  of  argument,  in  the  absence  oi  facts, 
and  in  their  abundance  of  littleness,  with  a  determination  to 
carry  their  point  and  confuse  our  people  and  thus  push  their 
encroachment  of  their  new  doctrine  still  further  into  Tennessee 
congregations,  some  Missouri  sympathizing  pastors  have 
entrenched  themselves  behind  the  cry,  "  they  make  us  here- 
tics" "it  was  aimed  at  us,"  and  "  they  condemn  all  who  did 
not  sign  that  paper,"  etc,  by  the  latter  clause  of  this  paper. 
We  say  nothing  of  the  kind.  This  latter  clause  is  but  the 
negative  statement  of  what  is  affirmatively  stated  in  the 
former  clause.  The  latter  clause  reads :  "  and  (it  is  our  con- 
viction) that  those  who  reject  the  doctrine  'Intuitu  Fidei' 
reject  therewith  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  Confess- 
ions.''" This  latter  clause  is  but  an  emphasis  upon  the  form- 
er. It  is  the  Confessional  method.  Our  Confessions  almost 
invariably,  after  making  the  affirmative  thetical  statement, 
add  the  antithesis,  or  negative  statement,  by  way  of  empha- 
sis. Why  make  all  this  noise  sbout  the  latter  clause?  We 
meant  to  make  a  clear  statement  of  our  position,  and  then 
to  emphasize  it.  And  again,  to-day,  this  second  time,  we 
reiterate  and  emphasize  that  position.  We  mean  to  meet 
Missouri's  pettifogging  and  studied  garbling  of  the  Confess- 
ions, with  clear,  explicit  and  emphatic  statements  of  the  old, 
true  and  tried  doctrines  of  the  Lutheran  Church  as  held  and 
defended  by  the  Tennessee  Synod.  We  are  set  for  the  defence 
of  the  Tennessee  Synod  against  any  encroachments  upon  her 
congregations  by  others  not  of  her  faith.  We  shall  oppose, 
by  the  help  of  God,  with  all  our  power  the  introduction  of 
Calvinistic  leaven  into  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  Old  Tennes- 
see Synod. 

With  Rev.  P.  C.  Henkel,  D.  D.,  we  express  our  regret  that, 

''THERE  IS  ANY  OCCASION  FOR  THE    CHURCH    TO    BE    TROUBLED 
WITH  THAT  SUBJECT  (ELECTION)    NOW.'1 

He  already,  in   1881,  anticipated  that  the  Church  here 
would  at  sometime  be  troubled  with  the  Missouri  doctrine; 


4G  The  Situation  in  North  Carolina, 

for  he  says  in  the  letter  to  Dr.  F.  A.  Schmidt,  already  quoted,. 
"  that  burning  question  of  election  is  not  as  jet  troubling  us 
here."  But  most  assuredly  he  did  not  anticipate  that  Mis- 
souri doctrine  would  be  brought  here  and  hawked  and  ped- 
dled around  in  his  name;  and  that  his  endorsement  would  be 
claimed  for  it,  by  any  one  teaching;  it,  and  standing  in  his 
old  pupit  and  claiming  that  he  stood  in  the  footsteps  of  P. 
C.  H.mkel.  For  he  says  to  Dr.  Schmidt,  in  the  letter  quoted  : 
"If  you  should  have  occasion  to  fight  it  in  the  future, 
you  can  do  so  from  this  point  as  well  as  any  other."  He 
knew  on  which  side  Dr.  Schmidt  was  fighting/ 

We  yet  give  a  short  summary  of  this  election  question. 
Missouri  says  (Dr.  Walther  above  quoted)  that  faith  is  not 
considered  in  election.  Article  IX  of  the  Canons  of  the 
Synod  of  Dort  (Calvinistic)  says  the  same,  viz :"  election  was 

NOT  FOUNDED   UPON    FORESEEN    FAITH."      Prof.    Pieper    (Mo.) 

says:  "  Faith  is  not  a  condition  in  election."  Dr.  Walther 
(Mo.)  says:  "Nothing,  nothing  at  all  did  god  foresee,  in 
those  whom  he  decreed  to  save.".  The  Cannons  of  the  Syn- 
ods of  Dort  Art.  X  say  ;  "  God  was  pleased  out  of  the  com- 
mon mass  of  sinners  to  adopt  some  certain  persons  as  a  pe- 
culiar people  to  himself."  Dr.  Walther  says :  "  God  chose  the 
elect  out  of  the  number  of  unbelievers,  among  whom  he  saw 
them."  Art.  IX  Canons  of  Synod  of  Dort,  says:  "election  is 
the  fountain  of  every  saving  good,  from  which  proceed  faith, 
etc."  Missouri  says :  "  The  first  link  in  the  chain  of  our  sal- 
vation is  election."  In  Missouri's  Thirteen  Theses,  1881, 
No.  9.  faith  is  excluded  in  the  decree  of  election.  Art.  X, 
Synod  of  Dort  says:  "The  good  pleasure  of  God  is  the  sole 
cause  of  election."  Missouri  in  West.  Dist.,  1879,  p.  38: 
"Even  so  God  acts  towards  us,  only  that  he  does  not  even 

ASK  AFTER  IT,  WHETHER  WE  HAVE  OBEYED  OR  NOT,  BUT  DOES 
JUST  AS  HE  WILL." 

Here  we  see  that  the  Missouri  Synod,  and  the  Synod  of 
Dort  (Calvinistic)  agree  in  the  essential  points  on  the  doc- 
trine of  election.  They  both  teach  an  absolute  and  uncondi- 
tional election.  This  is  Calvinism.  Of  course,  Missouri  de- 
nies the  charge  of  Calvinism,  but  the  only  argument  we  have 
yet  seen  is,  their  very  strong  assertions  that  they,  do  not 
teach  it;  and  they  really  ask  people  to  believe  that  they  do 
not  hold  Calvinism,  notwithstanding  these  plain  facts.  They 
say,  indeed,  that  their  election  is  not  unconditional,  but 
that  it  is  conditioned  in  Christ.  Let  us  see  how  this  is.  The 
causes  of  election  are  the  Grace  of  God   and  the  most  holy 


Tk®  Situation  in  North  Carolina,  47 

merit  of  Christ.  Bat  God's  gb4.CE  extends  to  all  men: 
"God  so  loved  the  world  etc."  (John  3:16).  The  merits  of 
Christ  extend  to  all  men,  "Jesus  should  taste  death  for 
every  man  "  (Heb.2:9).  And  therefore  as  both  of  the  only  two 
causes  of  election  extend  to  all  men,  if  no  conditions  were 
introduced,  election  would  be  universal.  As  faith  is  the  only 
connection  between  the  merits  of  Christ  and  man,  therefore 
faith  conditions  the  election.  "  It  is  of  faith  that  it  might 
by  grace."  (Rom.  4:16).  Election  can  not  be  conditioned  in 
Christ,  except  through  faith.  And  the  Form,  of  Con.  says  it 
isso  conditioned,  Epit.  par.  13,  page  3*2 7,  Jacob's  edition  :  fi  In 
him  (Christ)  therefore,  we  should  seek  the  eternal  election  of 
the  I  ather,  who,  in  his  eternal  divine  counsel,  determin- 
ed THAT  HE  WOULD  SAVE  NO  ONE  EXCEPT  THOSE  WHO  ACKNOWL- 
EDGE his  Son,  Christ,  and  truly  believe  on  him." 

David  Henkel  says  election  is  so  conditioned;  page,  171 
as  above  quoted  :  'kNo  man  can  be  in  Christ  so  as  to  be  saved, 
unless  he  haa^e  faith;  hence  to  be  (  hosen  in  christ  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world,  implies  a  foreseen  faith 
from  eternity,  which  is  a  sufficient  ground  of  election." 

Dr.  P.  C.  Henkel  in  sermon  notes  on  election  (in  possession 
of  Mr.  J.  T.  Miller,  Conover,  N.  C.)  says:  "Faith  only  the 
condition  in  election."  And  all  the  standard  Theologians 
of  the  Lutheran  Church  for  three  hundred  years  say  that 
faith  is  the  condition,  the  Bible  says  that  faith  is  the  con- 
dition: John  3:  16:  "whosoever  believeth  in  him  should 
notperish;"  John  1 :  12  ;  Romans  4:16  ;  2  Thes.  2:13.  Dr. 
Walther,  (Mo.),  Prof.  Pieper  (Mo.),  the  Thirteen  Theses  of 
Missouri,  all  Missouri  publications  and  the  Synod  of  Dort 
(Calvinistic)  say  that  faith  is  not  the  the  condition  in 
election.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Form,  of  Con.,  David 
Henkel,  Dr.  P.  C.  Henkel  (Term.  Synod,)  all  the  standard 
theologians  of  the  Lutheran  Church  for  three  hundred  years, 
and,  above  all  the  Holy  Scriptures  say  that  faith  is  the 
condition. 

We  quote  the  following  from  the  Minutes  of  the  Concordia 
District  of  Ohio  Synod.  1882,  as  a  clear,  concise  statement 
ot  this  whole  matter.    We  quote  from  page  39  : 

"The  Missourians  may  confuse  the  lay-member  by  appealing  to  §  8,  p. 
G51,  in  support  of  their  position,  that  men  are  chosen  to  conversion :  'But 
the  eternal  election  of  God  not  only  foresees- and  foreknows  the  salvation  of 
the  elect,  but  is  also  from  the» gracious  will  and  pleasure  of  God  in  Christ- 
Jesus,  a  cause  which  procures,  works,  helps,  and  promotes  what  pertains 
thereto.'  All  that  is  necessary  to  understand  this  and  to  refute  Missouri,  is 
to  observe  what  the  Confession  means  by  election. 

According  to  the  Confession  election  has  two  parts,  thus: 


48 


The  Situ  fit  ion  in  horth  ( hvoVuih, 


1.  The  decree  establishing  (1.  Redemption,  §  15,  652. 
the  way  of  Salvation,  or  X  2.  Call  through  Word,  §  17. 


3.  Efficaciousness  of  Word,  §  17. 

4.  Justification,  §  18. 

5.  Sanctification.  19,  p.  653. 

6.  Preservation,  §  20  and  21. 

7.  Glorification,  §  22. 


means  of  grace. 
ELECTION:  {2.  The  choice  of  the  per- 
sons in  whom  the  means 
have  accomplished  their 
purpose,  §  23. 

When  the  Confession  says  election  procures  salvation  and  all  that  per- 
tains to  it,  it  must  include  the  means  of  grace  as  the  principal  part  of  elec- 
tion, as  the  Confession  emphasizes  the  fact  so  often  that  no  man  is  convert- 
ed and  saved  except  by  the  Word,  Law  and  Gospel,  and  when  they  form  ihe 
first  and  chief  part  of  election  then  it  is  a  cause  which  procures  our  Salva- 
tion and  what  pertains  thereto. 
In  opposition  to  this  notice  what  the  Missourians  mean  by  the  term 

1.  The  Call. 
(  The  choice  of  the  persons  2.  Conversion. 

ELECTION  :\  that   shall    and    must   be  1 3.  Faith. 

{  saved,  to—  4.  Perseverance. 

(5.  Glorification. 
If  this  be  the  conception  of  election,  then  the  Confession  ought  to  say  that 
election  settles  every  man's  destiny  ;  and  it  ought  not  dwell  so  earnestly 
upon  the  preaching  and  hearing  of  the  Word  as  God's  only  means  to  save  a 
ruined  world." 

It  it  were  a  question  of  name  merely,  Tennessee  Synod,  or 
Missouri  Synod,  that  is  agitating  the  Church  here  now,  we 
would  not  raise  our  voice  or  lift  a  pen  against  these  men 
who  come  here  from  Missouri.  Nor  are  we  writing  in  the  in- 
terest of  our  school— the  school  question  is  rapidly  adjusting 
itself;  but  we  write  in  opposition  to  an  error,  affecting  a 

VITAL  POINT  IN  THE  DOCTRINES  OF  OUR  LUTHERAN  CHURCH.    We 

write  that  our  people  may  have  the  facts  in  the  case, 
that  they  may  understand  the  situation. 

The  old  Tennessee  Synod,  established  by  our  fathers  upon 
the  pure  word  of  God— the  first  to  publish  the  Book  of  Con- 
cord in  the  English  Language,  the  third  oldest  Luther n 
Synod  in  the  United  States,  is  now  being  attacked  by  a 
foreign  element,  aided  and  abetted  by  pastors  in  our  own 
connection  :  an  effort  is  being  made  to  introduce  a  doctrine 
which  the  Tennesssee  Synod  never  held ;  and  thus  disturben- 
ces  are  being  caused  in  our  Synod.  My  brethern,  both  lay 
and  clerical,  let  us  look  well  to  our  position,  let  us  firmly 
hold  fast  to  the  Synod  of  our  fathers;  let  us  heed  well  the 
admonition  of  our  Savior :  "Beware  of  false  prophets  which 
come  to  you  in  sheep's  clothing."  In  times  like  these  the  safe 
position  for  us  is  to  adhere  strictly  to  the  sound  biblical 
and  confessional  position  of  the  Tennesssee  Synod,  which 
she  has  maintained  for  three  quarters  of  a  century.  For 
her  prosperity  let  us  labor  and  pray.  "Pray  for  the  peace 
of  Jerusalem,  they  shall  prosper  that  love  thee." 


